Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
It Ain't a Party Til the LaRouchies Show Up
So that woman who was querying Barney Frank about the alleged Nazism of Barack Obama turns out to be a LaRouchie. Dave Weigel asks:
As I've pointed out before, when liberals protested the Iraq War, the small number of anarchists and Communists who showed up to their rallies dominated the coverage. Liberals didn't get a pass on their associations. Conservatives have been pointing to the presence of LaRouche activists at these town halls to argue that the only people waving "Nazi" signs are LaRouchies. That's not true, but even if it were true, what would the difference be?
One reply is that it wasn't fair to treat the sane opponents of the Iraq War like they were interchangeable with ANSWER either. Why shouldn't liberals "get a pass on their associations" when the only association at issue is the fact that they marched in some of the same parades? A few folks like Ramsey Clark had more intimate associations with ANSWER than that, and they deserved the flak they got. The average antiwar protester did not.
Another reply is that the LaRouchies turned up at the antiwar marches too. There, as in the health care debate, they offered a critique that mixed ideas you might have heard from other protesters with ideas that only make sense if you've just spent a year undergoing the Ludovico technique. The LaRouchies show up everywhere: sometimes alongside the left, sometimes alongside the right, sometimes alongside a bunch of winos at the bus stop. But aside from a few folks like -- again! -- Ramsey Clark, most of the people who encounter the cult hold their nose and back away.
Citizen Nothing|8.19.09 @ 12:28PM|#
The LaRouchies show up everywhere: sometimes alongside the
left, sometimes alongside the right, sometimes alongside a bunch of
winos at the bus stop.
Just like us libertarians.
Sigh.
The Angry Optimist|8.19.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Weigel, really, why do you have to be such a tool? First of all,
ANSWER dominated anit-war rallies - many of the ones that
I saw, they were a prominent sponsor, so you had quite a bit more
"interrelatedness" of liberals and ANSWER.
That's just a start - but, regardless, yes, mainstream folks should
be divorced from the crazier elements. To lump them together is to
play the guilt by association game.
Warty|8.19.09 @ 12:31PM|#
My current theory is that the set of all LaRouchies is equivalent to the set of all Raelians.
|8.19.09 @ 12:31PM|#
"As I've pointed out before, when liberals protested the Iraq
War, the small number of anarchists and Communists who showed up to
their rallies dominated the coverage. "
Weigal is such a twat. What coverage? I never saw any coverage that
was dominated by anarchists and communists outside of a few
rightwing blogs. The media went out of its way not to show those
people and not show the radical Islamists who showed up to.
Citizen Nothing|8.19.09 @ 12:35PM|#
Dave, come back to the Dark Side. Together we can rule the galaxy.
|8.19.09 @ 12:36PM|#
What John said.
The MSM ignored reporting the lunatics on the left, and the report
on nothing but the lunatics on the right.
|8.19.09 @ 12:44PM|#
Jimmy Carter: Maybe Mr. Bender can get a spot in the closet of
presidential losers.
Bob Dole: Bob Dole needs company. LaRouche won't stop with the
knock-knock jokes.
Bender: Pass.
Abdul|8.19.09 @ 12:50PM|#
ANSWER, a socialist organization, ran the anti-war
protests. They got the permits, organized the schedule, sent out
the press releases, etc. So the association is deeper.
Larouchies showed up at town halls, along with conservatives who
were everywhere on the spectrum from "concerned" to "escaped mental
patient." There's less associative link.
|8.19.09 @ 12:54PM|#
I don't get this. Larouchies are a fringe of neither party and
are certainly not claimed or "owned" by the Republicans.
Poxes on both houses and everything, but this isn't a mirror image
of previous leftwing protests.
Jesse Walker|8.19.09 @ 12:59PM|#
Abdul: ANSWER ran some, not all, of the antiwar protests. Most
of the people who showed up were not ANSWERites and probably
couldn't tell you what ANSWER was. The first wave of criticism of
ANSWER came from antiwar lefties who did know what ANSWER
was and didn't want to march with them.
My general attitude at the time was that I'd rather be in a
movement without ANSWER than a movement with it, but I wasn't going
to redbait people just for showing up at marches where ANSWER had a
presence. I feel the same way about the health care protests now: I
wish the LaRouchies and birthers would go away, but they don't
define the movement against Obama's proposals.
|8.19.09 @ 1:02PM|#
I wish the LaRouchies and birthers would go away, but they
don't define the movement against Obama's proposals.
That's kind of up to the MSM, unfortunately.
Dave Weigel|8.19.09 @ 1:04PM|#
I actually agree with Jesse here; by and large it would be nice
if everyone got a pass. But I've been arguing with people who spent
eight years portraying every protest against Bush policy with the
lowest common denominator. I don't recall, say, Michelle Malkin,
averring that one person with a Hitler sign at a liberal protest
did not speak for the majority. Quite the contrary -- she accused
Bush opponents of being "unhinged," of having "Bush derangement
syndrome," and of hating "Bushitler." It was a stupid game, but
they can't very well kick over the board when it's played against
them.
On the LaRouche nuts -- look, these people show up to all kinds of
political events in order to be first at the microphones and ramble
about British gangsters. But I'm hearing conservatives argue that
1) they're the only people holding Hitler signs and 2) they're
Democrats. They're not Democrats -- they're kooks who think Obama
wants to kill old and crippled people, which is what Sarah Palin
thinks. And they're way behind Glenn Beck on the
comparing-Obama-to-Nazis front.
|8.19.09 @ 1:05PM|#
"The first wave of criticism of ANSWER came from antiwar lefties
who did know what ANSWER was and didn't want to march with
them."
I am not doubting you Jesse, but I would like to see some links to
anti-war lefties calling out ANSWER.
|8.19.09 @ 1:09PM|#
I would prefer to withhold the "fascist" or "Nazi" label for when these idiots who keep de-limiting government make it possible for a movement akin to those to rise in the U.S.
|8.19.09 @ 1:10PM|#
It was more than a few people carrying Hitler signs
Weigal.
At one time not so long ago, those on the Left, and mainstream
Democrats as well, apparently believed inflammatory language,
Hitler parallels, and perverse expressions of real hatred were
acceptable means to the noble end of discrediting the Bush
presidency.
During the bleak days of Iraq, demonstrators carried swastikas and
Hitler portraits of Bush habitually. Nicholson Baker wrote a novel
in which characters are contemplating killing Bush. Films were
praised imagining the assassination of the president. Michael
Moore, courted by the Democratic elite, lamented that bin Laden on
9/11 had hit a blue state - and once compared the killers of
Americans in Iraq to Minutemen.
Al Gore customarily used excessive language like "brown shirts."
Senators Durbin, Kennedy, and others compared our soldiers to
Saddamites, Pol Pot's killers, and Nazis. Ward Churchill compared
the victims in the Twin Tower to "little Eichmanns." Sen. Robert
Byrd likened Pres. George W. Bush's policies to what transpired in
Nazi Germany. Linda Ronstadt, Harold Pinter, Scott Ritter, Ted
Rall, and George Soros agreed with Fidel Castro, the Iranians, and
North Koreans in comparing Bush to Hitler.
Jonathan Chait wrote in the New Republic on why "I hate George W.
Bush." Garrison Keillor likened Bush's Republicans to "brown shirts
in pinstripes." Even old hero Sen. John Glenn said of the Bush
agenda: "It's the old Hitler business." In 1984, the Guardian's
Charles Brooker declared:
On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying
Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby
disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will
endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted
bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John
Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. - where are you
now that we need you?
Democrats were furious that Rush Limbaugh wanted Obama's agenda to
fail, but I think it was their National Chairman Howard Dean
himself who went way beyond Limbaugh when he said publicly, "I hate
the Republicans and everything they stand for," and, "This is a
struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."
Didn't NAACP chairman Julian Bond once declare of the Bush
administration, "Their idea of equal rights is the American flag
and the Confederate swastika flying side by side?"
In comparison to all that, the outrage of a few private citizens -
none of them in government, prominent in the arts, or political
commentators - seems rather mild. In truth, the 2000s marked the
liberal reversion to the hateful speech of the 1950s extreme Right,
but with a twist. In the 1950s, there were liberal humanists who
rose up to deplore the cheap slurs of Joe McCarthy & Co.; by
2001, there were none to object to the above sort of speech.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzMzYmFkNmEwZjcxOGViNDE2YWNjNzBkM2Y3YzdjMjM=
Stop lying about this. The Left had more than a few people on the
fringes who said crazy shit about Bush.
|8.19.09 @ 1:12PM|#
You still suck Weigel. After all the bullshit that went on over the last 8 years, you now have the nerve to equate a few town halls to that? Bullshit.
|8.19.09 @ 1:16PM|#
I don't recall, say, Michelle Malkin, averring that one
person with a Hitler sign at a liberal protest did not speak for
the majority. Quite the contrary -- she accused Bush opponents of
being "unhinged," of having "Bush derangement syndrome," and of
hating "Bushitler."
Not just Michelle Malkin. Some of the commenters on this blog did
the same shit.
Now those same people are OUTRAGED!!! that they are being tainted
by association with the lunatic fringe.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
|8.19.09 @ 1:18PM|#
they're kooks who think Obama wants to kill old and crippled
people, which is what Sarah Palin thinks. And they're way behind
Glenn Beck on the comparing-Obama-to-Nazis front.
Exactly.
Even the fucking head of the RNC is pushing the death panel
bullshit. So spare me the whole "it's not conservatives" BS.
Jesse Walker|8.19.09 @ 1:20PM|#
Dave: Technically, I think they are Democrats. Or at least they
were Democrats -- the strategy may have shifted while I wasn't
paying attention. But for a while at least, LaRouche and his
minions would run for office in Democratic primaries.
The mainstream Democrats hated this, and it obviously would be a
gross case of guilt by association to tar them with the LaRouchie
brush just because a cult took advantage of their right to run for
office under whatever banner they choose. Still, for the record,
the Republicans aren't just making stuff up when they say the
LaRouchies are Dems.
John: Well, you can start with the the link from the word "flak" in
my post, which goes to an anti-ANSWER piece by the anarchist Bill
Weinberg that was (IIRC) later reprinted by Z. Beyond
that, the first wave of anti-ANSWER blog posts on the right drew on
articles by lefties like Marc Cooper in liberal venues like the
L.A. Weekly. I'm not sure the conservatives knew that they
were quoting members of the left, but they were.
For that matter, before there even was an Iraq war,
anti-totalitarians in the anti-globalization movement were
denouncing ANSWER and warning demonstrators not to get drawn into
the sect. I think those articles might be the first anti-ANSWER
literature I ever saw.
|8.19.09 @ 1:27PM|#
"Even the fucking head of the RNC is pushing the death panel
bullshit. So spare me the whole "it's not conservatives" BS."
Just because one of the chief theoreticians behind Obamacare is Dr.
Ezekiel Emmanuel, the White House Chief of Staff's brother, has
openly discussed the "life value" of infants and the elderly,
noting that a child is not really self aware until the age of two
and they are talking about cutting costs and they are going to
create pannels to determine who gets what treatment, doesn't mean
they want death pannels. Anyone who would think that is just
crazy.
hmm|8.19.09 @ 1:32PM|#
I'd have to say I saw a lot more people carrying bush nazi signs
and other silly shit than just a few wackos in a crowd at war
protests here. In contrast you go to a town hall meeting and there
seem to be less people, more signs directed at policy than a
person, and more vocal individuals. (I think that is more to do
with format) That's all anecdotal and who knows what goes on on the
left and right coast, you people are all fucked up beyond belief on
both ends.
This seems like a softball down play of the mostly liberal antiwar
protests by someone with liberal leanings to make the current
protests by mostly conservatives look worse. Pretty lame attempt at
that.
As per the nutjobs. They are everywhere and they are the most
noticeable. Only people selling something lump entire groups of
people together.
Mike M.|8.19.09 @ 1:33PM|#
I honestly had no idea that there still were LaRouchies.
Nevertheless, this desperate effort by the libs and their friends
in the big government loving leftist media to try and distract
everyone by turning the health care debate into a metadebate isn't
going to work. The single payer public option won't get passed
through this Congress.
|8.19.09 @ 1:41PM|#
"THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be
a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists.
And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic
conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the
country making those decisions just through the normal political
channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent
group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I
think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of
what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care
conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."
If Obama is not talking about a death pannel there TOm, what the
fuck is he talking about?
|8.19.09 @ 1:44PM|#
John, do you screech like this when the insurance companies make decisions concerning treatment options?
TOm|8.19.09 @ 1:44PM|#
If Obama is not talking about a death pannel there TOm, what
the fuck is he talking about?
Beer?
|8.19.09 @ 1:45PM|#
"The LaRouchies need to focus on nuclear fusion and credit card
fraud."
That and finally getting those drug charges agains the Queen of
England to stick.
|8.19.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Rich, credit card fraud maybe. I don't think they have the physics background to do the nuke fusion.
|8.19.09 @ 1:46PM|#
I don't need any guidance from any independent group. Fuck you Obama. Keep you and your creepy chief of staff and his doctor death brother the fuck away from me and my medical decisions.
|8.19.09 @ 1:48PM|#
John, I like you most of the time but I gotta say you are getting into tinfoil hat territory over this doctor deathpanel stuff.
Rich|8.19.09 @ 1:50PM|#
I don't think they have the physics background to do the
nuke fusion.
I agree, but that doesn't stop 'em from proselytizing the power
aspect. IIRC, that's sort of how they got started.
|8.19.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Seriously Ben
What is Obama talking about in that quote above if not a "Death
Panel". Break down what he says
"Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation
that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is
going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that
takes place."
Conversation about what? What is so difficult? I assume he is
talking about when we cut off treatment and let you die. No? Now he
goes one,
"It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions
just through the normal political channels."
Note, we don't get to make those decisions ourselves. The "country"
makes those decisions. And, those decisions are not made through
the normal political process. They are made by something else.
Which is?
"And that's part of why you have to have some independent group
that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has
to be able to give you some guidance."
Some independent group of doctors and ethicists. And they will
guide to towards your decision. First, no government group no
matter how well intentioned and benign ever just gives guidance.
Government equals coercion. Further, if the idea is to cut costs,
what is the point of the group if it is not to convince people to
stop asking for treatment and die? Lastly, if the government is
paying for your healthcare, how can the group ever not be
determinative?
Ben, that is a death panel. He is spelling it out pretty
clearly.
|8.19.09 @ 1:57PM|#
Also Ben just before that he states
"THE PRESIDENT: So that's where I think you just get into some very
difficult moral issues. But that's also a huge driver of cost,
right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives
are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care
bill out here."
It looks pretty clear to me.
|8.19.09 @ 2:15PM|#
ChicagoTom:
So CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc. are all just as reliable and partisan
as anonymous blog commenters? Gotcha.
hmm|8.19.09 @ 2:15PM|#
The term "death panels" needs to be removed from the discussion. The theory or idea that a group of government people can assess the value of a human and then direct the proper amount of care or aid is the issue. The term "Death Panels" is just retarded hyperbole and serves no purpose except to obscure the difference of opinion.
|8.19.09 @ 2:17PM|#
Hmm,
A group of government people will asses the value of human life and
then direct the proper amount of care to each individual based on
this determination.
I think that sounds worse than saying "death pannel". But if that
is not a death pannel what is?
|8.19.09 @ 2:29PM|#
Here's the thing.
The advocates of single payer health care argue, essentially, that
nobody should be denied treatment for anything, ever. They use the
unpleasant reality of people dying for lack of health care to argue
for "universal" coverage. Which implies that everyone will get
treated, no matter what.
But, they them selves will admit that the government will have to
do some kind of rationing to control costs. All national health
care services ration at some level, even if it is by limiting
supply and having waiting lists.
The length and nature of those waitinglists can be manipulated by
funding one type of specialist more than others, or by giving
priority to the young over the old, and so forth. Which means, at
some level in the political process, decisions are made as to which
treatments are most important, and which patients are more
deserving of treatment.
Which is to say, there will always be decisions about who is more
deserving of treatment. The only real question is whether those
determinations are made by some collective political process or by
the individuals private ability to pay. We could, for instance,
make it an election issue whether to favor the young over the old
in organ donations, under a national health care plan. We could
decide to prioritize AIDS treatment over care of the mentally
handicapped.
Now, personally, I don't see how a collectivized decisions making
process determining who deserves health care is more "moral" than
one where individuals pay their own way.
Noone is really claiming that everyone will get unlimited health
care. The only difference is whether rationing decision is made by
you or someone else with power over you.
oh no not this again |8.19.09 @ 2:36PM|#
Oh look the three douche bags of libertarianism are here. You can look if you can tear your eyes away from the shit that's coming out of Johns mouths
oh no not this again|8.19.09 @ 2:39PM|#
I don't think the old will suffer as long as their voting holds up
|8.19.09 @ 2:41PM|#
John, I see your point. I agree that he is talking about end of
life issues among others, concerning how treatment dollars are
spent. I also see your coercive government argument. I don't see
any difference between the medicare folks making those decisions
and a private insurance claims adjuster making them. I assume that
I am less fearful of the government in these matters than you which
results in my trusting the government more.
fwiw I have had some horrible experiences with private insurance
carriers over my medical treatment. Medicare has been just fine for
me. My opinion may be slanted accordingly.
|8.19.09 @ 2:44PM|#
Ben,
My mother was on medicare and never had a problem. I don't find it
to be that bad of a program. But, it is also going broke. And you
can buy sumplemental insurance to cover things that medicare won't
pay for. What worries me is a government bent on making decisions
based on quality of life and efficency that is also focused on
cutting costs. That is quite scary.
|8.19.09 @ 2:49PM|#
If Obama is not talking about a death pannel there TOm, what
the fuck is he talking about?
A cost benefit analysis of certain treatments ?
Like Insurance companies do all the time?
That doesn't sound like a death panel to me. Rationing? Sure, but
not death panels. (unless your a loon)
The death panel talk came about because of a provision that allowed
for voluntary end of life counseling and living will arrangements
(the HORROR). Something that shouldn't be controversial, but has
become so because of lies and scare tactics.
Any more dishonesty you want to put forth ?
|8.19.09 @ 2:52PM|#
A group of government people will asses the value of human
life and then direct the proper amount of care to each individual
based on this determination.
I think that sounds worse than saying "death pannel".
Sure it does...cuz it's still a lie.
No one is assessing the value of human life John. Stop your
lying.
They would be assesing the value/effectivness of certain treatments
for certain patients, not deciding to withhold life saving
treatment from people.
|8.19.09 @ 2:53PM|#
My mother was on medicare and never had a problem. I don't find it to be that bad of a program.
|8.19.09 @ 2:54PM|#
My mother was on medicare and never had a problem. I don't
find it to be that bad of a program.
So you would support a Medicare for everyone system?
|8.19.09 @ 2:56PM|#
Getting back on topic...
The FreedomWorks people (who are doing the heavy lifting in
organization the protests) aren't LaRouchies. They are GOPers and
corporate interests.
Medta4|8.19.09 @ 2:57PM|#
"oh no not this again"
I remember you. You're super wity and funny. I like that.
(farts)
|8.19.09 @ 2:59PM|#
A cost benefit analysis of certain treatments ?
Like Insurance companies do all the time?
That doesn't sound like a death panel to me. Rationing? Sure, but not death panels. (unless your a loon)
So, ChicagoTom, you agree that Speaker Pelosi is a loon for calling
insurance companies "villains" for making those sorts of decisions,
then?
|8.19.09 @ 3:00PM|#
The FreedomWorks people (who are doing the heavy lifting in organization the protests) aren't LaRouchies. They are GOPers and corporate interests.
Who are being massively outspent by the Democrats and their
corporate interests favoring the idea and organizing their own
"Astroturf."
|8.19.09 @ 3:01PM|#
"No one is assessing the value of human life John. Stop your
lying.
They would be assesing the value/effectivness of certain treatments
for certain patients, not deciding to withhold life saving
treatment from people."
How do you asses the value and effectiveness of a treatment for
certain patients without assessing the value of the patient's life?
Go read the good Dr. Emmanuel's articles. They are online. That is
exactly what he is talking about.
No one is lying Tom. Stop throwing out insults and look at what
they are saying. They are talking about rationing care based on the
quality of life of the patient. That is assigning value to people's
lives. Indeed, these kinds of panels already exist and operate as
death panels in the UK and Canada.
"My mother was on medicare and never had a problem. I don't find it
to be that bad of a program.
So you would support a Medicare for everyone system?"
No I would not. Just becuase it works in some cases doesn't mean it
is ideal. Furhter, giving it to everyone would crowd out private
insurance and allow the Dr. Emmanuels of the world to get their
filthy paws on people's healthcare.
|8.19.09 @ 3:03PM|#
"No one is assessing the value of human life John. Stop your
lying."
QALY much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year
|8.19.09 @ 3:04PM|#
"A cost benefit analysis of certain treatments ?
Like Insurance companies do all the time?
That doesn't sound like a death panel to me. Rationing? Sure, but
not death panels. (unless your a loon)"
How do you do the cost benefit analysis Tom? You have to know the
benefit. Right now, insurance companies don't deny care based on
"quality of life". They deny it based on if the treatment will
work. No one denies handicapped people treatment because they have
a lower quality of life. Obamacare wants to do just that. They want
to do a cost benefit analysis based on how old you are and how
capable you are and ration care based on that. They also want to
save money. You can't save money doing that without denying care to
the old and the handicapped. Either they are not going to save any
money or they are screwing the old and the handicapped. You can't
have it both ways.
|8.19.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Who are being massively outspent by the Democrats and their
corporate interests favoring the idea and organizing their own
"Astroturf."
OH NOES!! THEY ARE BEING OUTSPENT!!!! Who cares? Money is speech,
right? That's the first amendment in action, right?
And that isn't the point of this post.
People keep trying to pretend like it isn't right wingers who are
acting loony. It's the LaRouchies who are the crazies.
But that just isnt true. FreedomWorks is a GOP outfit (Dick Armey
had to quit his lobbying firm because they were embarassed by his
association with FreedomWorks)
The
FT reports:
Both DLA Piper, which has big healthcare clients including Bristol Myers Squibb, the pharmaceutical company that opposes elements of Mr Obama's health reforms, and Mr Armey said he had decided to quit in order to spare the firm any further embarrassment by association with Freedom Works.
Dick Armey is hardly a LaRouchie
|8.19.09 @ 3:08PM|#
BTW, I have it on good authority that "oh no not again" is Tony's redneck lover. Which as amazing as it may sound to hear from me, upon learning this, I rather feel sorry for Tony.
|8.19.09 @ 3:10PM|#
How do you asses the value and effectiveness of a treatment
for certain patients without assessing the value of the patient's
life?
Well, I do think there is a difference between assessing the
"effectiveness" of a treatment and assessing the value of a
person's life.
But that's part of the dishonesty of the whole debate, that the
supporters of universal healthcare won't admit that merely
assessing the "effectiveness" of certain treaments isn't going to
control costs sufficiently. That there will have to be some kind of
rationing and, at some point, some kind of political decision when
to deny treatment to someone who might otherwise live.
|8.19.09 @ 3:11PM|#
Obamacare wants to do just that.
No it doesn't John.
The worst it would do would be to deny a hip replacement to a 70
year old who doesn't live an active lifestyle.
Just like when I had to get my ACL replaced. My doctor asked me
questions like How active am I and if I couldn't do certain
activities (skiing, playing basketball, etc) how would that impact
my life. He told me that for his older sedentary patients he
recommends against them because there isn't very much benefit vs.
the cost and the suffering post/op
That is hardly a death panel.
|8.19.09 @ 3:12PM|#
Tom,
Stop arguing by ad homimin. Reather than try to defend Obama's
indefensible plan and statements, you just throw out insults and
claim that someone who once showed up at a Townhall worked for some
industry group. Yeah, that means all objection ot Obama must be
invalid.
Ben|8.19.09 @ 3:12PM|#
The local newspaper confirmed the LaRouche connection at the
Barney Frank event:
[A giant poster of President Barack Obama bearing a mustache
reminiscent of Hitler's drew fire from Frank during the
meeting.
One woman with the LaRouche Political Action Committee, which
sponsored the poster, asked Frank why "you continue to support Nazi
policy."]
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090819/NEWS/908190334
|8.19.09 @ 3:16PM|#
Tom,
If this is already occurring, how is Obama going to save money? You
can't have it both ways. You making about five different in
compatable claims. Think about what you are saying.
1. Insurance companies are evil and deny care, yet the govenrment
is going to save money by replacing the insurance companies.
2. Obama is not instituting death pannels because this kind of
thing goes on all the time right now, yet Obama is going to save
money over the current system
3. Obama is going to provide insurance and medical care to the 47
million uninsured and is going to save money but is going to do
that without denying care to those who have insurance now.
All of those things can't be true. The key is the committment to
saving money. You can't save money unless you stop doing things you
are doing now. That means the old and the handicapped are not going
to get treatment.
hmm|8.19.09 @ 3:19PM|#
The worst it would do would be to deny a hip replacement to
a 70 year old who doesn't live an active lifestyle.
You have a real magic 8 ball that sees into the future?
|8.19.09 @ 3:24PM|#
No it doesn't John.
The worst it would do would be to deny a hip replacement to a 70
year old who doesn't live an active lifestyle.
It doesn't do it YET. What do you think will happen when costs
continue to escalate?
They may not set up "death panels", but there WILL be some kind of
rationing and it WILL involve denying treatment to someone that may
die as a result.
There is no way you are going to get any kind of cost containment
without that.
People do die on waiting lists. Functionally, imposing price
controls will have the same effect. Supply will diminish, waiting
lists will lengthen, and some people will die before being treated.
One way to control costs IS simply to limit the number of people
treated.
Either the government will impose rationing, or the electorate will
through the political process, or sheer economic reality will come
crashing down and we literally won't be able to borrow or print
enough money to continue to pay it all. Rationing WILL happen. And
political decisions WILL be made about who gets treated.
Sen. J Billington Bulworth|8.19.09 @ 3:38PM|#
now everybody gonna get sick some day
but nobody know how dey gonna pay
health care, managed care, HMOs
ain't gonna work, no sir, not those
cause the thing that's the same in every one of these
is these motherfuckas there, the Insurance Companies!
yo you can call it single-payer or Canadian way
only socialized medicine will ever save the day
c'mon now, lemme hear that dirty word-
Socialisssssssm!
Michael|8.19.09 @ 4:02PM|#
The worst it would do would be to deny a hip replacement to
a 70 year old who doesn't live an active lifestyle.
That's your example of worst case scenario? Leaving someone to live
out their remaining years in excruciating pain because they don't
live an "active lifestyle"? Sorry, but you're going to have to try
a lot harder than that if you want to get others on board.
|8.19.09 @ 4:11PM|#
Tom really let his mask down with the "active lifestyle" comment. I will tell you what it means. It means someone who doesn't have the proscribed BMI, or smoked or engaged in any other subversive activities.
Magic Eight Ball|8.19.09 @ 4:15PM|#
Leaving someone to live out their remaining years in
excruciating pain because they don't live an "active lifestyle"?
Sorry, but you're going to have to try a lot harder than that if
you want to get others on board.
By then she'll have Federal MM to ease the pain.
Michael|8.19.09 @ 4:17PM|#
I don't know, John. I kind of read it as implying "non-producer". Perhaps Tom could clarify it for us.
juicebox factcheck|8.19.09 @ 4:37PM|#
The essential elements of the LaRouche Plan are three:
Abolish the Health Maintenace Organization (HMO) system;
Revive the principles and implementation of the 1946 Hill-Burton
Act;
Implement the Single-Payer plan (Medicare for all), as the key
means of financing adequate health care for all.
Jim Treacher|8.19.09 @ 4:41PM|#
OH NOES!! THEY ARE BEING OUTSPENT!!!!
If you're going to whine about "astroturfers," you're going to have
to put up with people pointing out that they're getting outspent
almost 3-to-1.
juicebox factcheck|8.19.09 @ 5:06PM|#
how does a 70 year old with a bad hip live an active
lifestyle?
volunteer for ACORN
|8.19.09 @ 5:19PM|#
The essential elements of the LaRouche Plan are three:
Abolish the Health Maintenace Organization (HMO) system;
Revive the principles and implementation of the 1946 Hill-Burton Act;
Implement the Single-Payer plan (Medicare for all), as the key means of financing adequate health care for all.
Actually, I would not be at all surprised if the majority of
protestors at the townhalls are in fact in favor of a single payer
plan. One that imposes zero costs on them, of course.
My ear to the ground is hearing that the Congressional plan does
not go far enough.
Libertarians have a way of hearing discontent as sympathy for our
ideas. Unfortunately, it rarely is. The vast majority want more
benefits from the government, not fewer.
After all, the complaint against the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage
Act of 1988 was that seniors would have to pay a graduated premium
for coverage that paid beyond medicare's rather low limits.
All Medicare recipients who earned enough to pay more than $150 a year in federal income tax would be required to pay a special 15 percent surtax, capped at $800 per person. In short, the poorest seniors would pay nothing and the wealthiest would pay the most. People earning under $25,000 a year would pay about $58 a year for catastrophic coverage; those earning about $40,000 would be required to put in $400 a year; and those in the highest income brackets would pay the maximum $800...
From
here.
|8.19.09 @ 5:21PM|#
My general attitude at the time was that I'd rather be in a
movement without ANSWER than a movement with it, but I wasn't going
to redbait people just for showing up at marches where ANSWER had a
presence. I feel the same way about the health care protests now: I
wish the LaRouchies and birthers would go away, but they don't
define the movement against Obama's proposals.
Late in the game, but my $.02 anyway.
I don't agree Jesse. To use an extreme example (and apologies if
someone has already covered this...no time to read all the
comments), if the Klan sponsored an anti-war rally, would you still
march in that rally? What if it were a Farrakhan-sponsored rally?
Or [insert your favorite loathsome organization here]. If not,
why?
When there is a prominent organization with a staked out position
that is sponsoring an event, my presumption is that you implicitly
condone/support the stated positions of that organization by
participating. You shouldn't get a pass because all the cool kids
were going and you couldn't be bothered to learn something about
them.
Also, I think there is a distinct difference between an organizing
or sponsoring body and loonies who who show up at an event and
attract all the negative attention.
Oh no not this again|8.19.09 @ 5:31PM|#
In libertopia, one must be able to get by using his wits, and
for back up, i still have my good looks.
The closest i came to "redneck" or being in the south was when i
went to college. Which really doesn't count since it was only a
southern midwestern state. I have dated two rednecks from indiana
though, no account for bad taste. i know i know
|8.19.09 @ 5:33PM|#
Good post JW. But you have to remember, the Reason staff are the cool kids. And they would lose their status as such if they ever said they won't go to an ANSWER march or admitted that the nuts on the right are not comparable to the nuts on the left.
BakedPenguin|8.19.09 @ 5:45PM|#
OH NOES!! THEY ARE BEING OUTSPENT!!!!
Just curious. How much of the propaganda drive is being paid for
with public funds?
Syd Henderson|8.19.09 @ 6:49PM|#
"As I've pointed out before, when liberals protested the Iraq
War, the small number of anarchists and Communists who showed up to
their rallies dominated the coverage. Liberals didn't get a pass on
their associations."
Communism was so passe by the Gulf War. Maybe he was thinking of
Vietnam.
|8.19.09 @ 7:24PM|#
If you're going to whine about "astroturfers," you're going
to have to put up with people pointing out that they're getting
outspent almost 3-to-1.
1. I haven't whined about anything.
2. Pointing out that astro-turfing isn't really grassroots
(corporations funding FreedomWorks is by definition not grass
roots) has nothing to do with how much money is being spent. It has
to do with who is pushing/controlling the agenda and who is behind
the "movement".
3. My problem is with the lies about death panels and killing
grandma (see John's comments)
It doesn't do it YET. What do you think will happen when costs
continue to escalate?
I dunno what will happen. Probably a combination of things
including paying less to doctors.
But it won't involve letting people die.
But again, your scary scenario already happens. Lots of people who
have been diagnosed with terminal illness are denied coverage by
their insurance because it's too expensive, or experimental or they
don't consider it the proper treatment for your disease.
Why is this only a problem when there is a specter of the
government making those decisions? Now I don't think it will ever
come to that. I think the government would be much more willing to
pay for treatment that the insurance companies already won't pay
for. But even if it were to happen...that to save costs terminal
patients would be denied coverage for life extending treatments or
experimental drugs that may or may not be effective -- that
wouldn't be any worse than the status quo. If you don't have a
problem when private entities make these decisions, then why is it
so problematic when it's the government??
You can't have it both ways. If you are afraid of death panels from
the government why aren't you yelling about private death
panels?
Also note that other countries that have socialized medicine aren't
just letting the elderly die. So I think that your whole point is a
big load of bullshit.
I will tell you what it means. It means someone who doesn't
have the proscribed BMI, or smoked or engaged in any other
subversive activities.
You are the biggest idiot I have ever spoken to.
Active lifestyle means just that. People who engage in activities
like sports or recreational activities like skiing. Some people are
more sedentary. It has nothing to do with eating approved foods or
BMI or anything like that.
Oh and by the way...here's
the woman shouting Heil Hitler to her Jewish Congressman..not a
LaRouchie..a self identified conservative who in her own words has
"always been a Republican"
Jim Treacher|8.19.09 @ 8:07PM|#
1. I haven't whined about anything.
I'm sure you don't think you have.
2. Pointing out that astro-turfing isn't really grassroots (corporations funding FreedomWorks is by definition not grass roots) has nothing to do with how much money is being spent. It has to do with who is pushing/controlling the agenda and who is behind the "movement".
So the real grassroots effort just happens to have a whole lot more
money thrown at it. That makes sense.
3. My problem is with the lies about death panels and killing grandma (see John's comments)
I understand that you need to think of them as lies.
|8.19.09 @ 8:30PM|#
"You are the biggest idiot I have ever spoken to.
Active lifestyle means just that. People who engage in activities
like sports or recreational activities like skiing. Some people are
more sedentary. It has nothing to do with eating approved foods or
BMI or anything like that."
So Tom you want to deny someone a hip replacement because they are
not a jock? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
|8.19.09 @ 8:46PM|#
Weigel supported the Iraq war, which should be enough said. Now he's going for some kind of Andrew Sullivan everything-to-everyone-so-long-as-they're-mainstream angle, which will probably make him rich and famous.
|8.19.09 @ 8:56PM|#
As I actually know what the root of the word hysteria means, I
always get the giggles over the term "right-wing hysteria".
How can a bunch of pussies accuse a bunch of Neanderthals of
"hysteria"? ;^)
|8.19.09 @ 9:04PM|#
Weigel should be so goddamned embarrassed he never shows his
face again:
http://daveweigel.com/?p=1350
http://daveweigel.com/?p=1334
http://daveweigel.com/?p=1359
Go look at his wretched archives. Fucker should be covering the
middle-school beat in Topeka. Shows you how far shamelessness can
get you.
anonymous|8.20.09 @ 1:02AM|#
"Pointing out that astro-turfing isn't really grassroots
(corporations funding FreedomWorks is by definition not grass
roots) has nothing to do with how much money is being spent."
No, astroturf is a metaphor built as a response to the "grassroots"
metaphor, suggesting that the grass is fake. I.e., the protesters
are professional PR types who may or may not actually give a shit
about what they are protesting, but are being paid to create the
illusion that people are angry.
People are angry. For reals. You may believe they are idiots (I
think that about any number of left-wing protesters) but I'm pretty
sure once they start packing heat and attracting unhealthy
attention from the secret service, their outrage is genuine.
Fact is that bullshit is excellent fertilizer for real grass,
whereas it doesn't do anything for astroturf. Metaphorically
speaking.
Sean Healy|8.20.09 @ 7:19AM|#
This is simple: Obama wants to change a system that denies everything to some into a system that denies something to everyone. The shortfall is the same either way, it's just widely distributed in Obama's plan. He's not going to magic any new healthcare into existence. He's just going to spread it a lot thinner. I bet people are really going to love it!
Tony|8.21.09 @ 12:39AM|#
This is simple: Obama wants to change a system that denies everything to some into a system that denies something to everyone. The shortfall is the same either way, it's just widely distributed in Obama's plan. He's not going to magic any new healthcare into existence. He's just going to spread it a lot thinner. I bet people are really going to love it!
The current system spends more than a trillion dollars in
identifiable waste.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245