"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty"

The Cato Institute's David Boaz reminds us about another time that a major White House official complained about "un-American" criticism:

At his town meeting in New Hampshire, President Obama urged people not to listen to those who seek to "scare and mislead the American people." Meanwhile, his new White House website "Reality Check"—your tax dollars at work, folks, on political propaganda—warns supporters that "the road ahead will surely reveal more aggressive efforts from defenders of the status quo to confuse and scare Americans with half-truths and outright lies."

I immediately thought of former Attorney General John Ashcroft's notorious declaration in December 2001: "to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."…

But the fact is that the Bush administration's actions after 9/11 really did result in a loss of liberty, and the Obama administration's plans for our health care really should scare Americans. And libertarians have been, and will continue to be, in the forefront of Americans resisting intrusions on liberty by administrations from both parties. They won't be dissuaded by Nixonian claims that dissent and criticism are divisive and damaging to national unity.

Read the rest here. And while you're at it, watch Reason.tv drop a dime on Reason's own Peter Suderman for his use of government figures to "scare Americans" about ObamaCare. (Note: Typo corrected)

Comments

[hmm]

This vile post has been reported to whitehouse.gov.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Pro Libertate]

Think about what the administration is really saying here: The proposals on the table are so good that any criticisms of them are lies. There are no alternative reforms that should be considered. The only position in opposition to the plan is to defend the status quo, not deregulation, other types of reform, etc.

I don't care what your politics are, this is another example of the Big Lie. Accompanied by the usual Big Shouting, Big Indignancy, and Big Ad Hominem Attack. Not a Democratic or Republican monopoly, but the practice does seem to get worse and worse with each administration.

[Das Leben der Anderen]

"But the fact is that the Bush administration's actions after 9/11 really did result in a loss of liberty"

[citation needed]

[highnumber]

...watch Reason.tv drop a time on Reason's own Peter Suderman for...

Do you mean "drop a dime"?

[ChicagoTom]

The proposals on the table are so good that any criticisms of them are lies.

No. Just the stupid ones the protestors are screaming about (death panels, euthanizing the old)

My favorite are the people who are on fucking medicare who are yelling keep the government out of my health care. Idiots.

[Kyle Jordan]

"the road ahead will surely reveal more aggressive efforts from defenders of the status quo to confuse and scare Americans with half-truths and outright lies."

Fuck you.

[Kyle Jordan]

And this one's for my fellow Reasonoids. I'm sure some of you are as fed up with all the bullshit as I am so here's a nice little thing I like to watch when I get pissed about this kind of shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ

[Pro Libertate]

Come on, CT, that's hardly an exhaustive list of competing ideas. However, I'm not even attacking this on the merits of the plan--I'm attacking the tactics. They're clearly dishonest, even though this sort of propaganda has become the status quo for presidents in recent years.

Not good.

[hmm]

The terror of it all.

I wonder how this was handled. The guy probably had a .308 round pointed at his chest from a few hundred yards the whole time. Hell I'd rather know who is armed than not.

The hyperbole and "OMG get a lawyer!!!" is great.

That fella has some basketball sized cojones.

[R C Dean]

No. Just the stupid ones the protestors are screaming about (death panels, euthanizing the old)

These are actually good examples of people protesting where the current bill will lead, if not what it actually says now.

The statements by Obama, questioning whether his own grandmother should have gotten a hip replacement at her age, and his advisers, yammering on about Quality Adjusted Life Years as a controlling metric for providing care, give people very good reason to be concerned that the bill contains the seeds of what they fear.

Face it, when you are on tape stating that you want single-payer (as Obama is) and then you claim that you don't want a single-payer (as Obama has), then your denials that the current reform is a foot in the door for more government intrusion into health care ring a little hollow.

[O\'Bama]

Sheesh! I never imagined that creating a dictatorship would be so hard!

[Tulpa]

ProL gets it right in the second post.

The White House line essentially seems to be, "Anyone who speaks against our plan is a liar and a shill for the insurance companies. Now, let's have a civil democratic discussion."

[P Brooks]

the road ahead will surely reveal more aggressive efforts from defenders of the status quo

Is this a promise, or a threat, from the Defender-of-the-Status-Quo-in-Chief?

[ed]

The battle is already half-lost. Most Americans have by now accepted the premise that they have a "right" to health care, regardless of whether they can pay for it. But if you asked a stranger on the street to help pay for your cancer treatment, he'd most likely decline. There's a philosophical disconnect within the citizenry. We're arguing about which color to paint the lifeboats.

[ChicagoTom]

These are actually good examples of people protesting where the current bill will lead, if not what it actually says now.

This statement is a great example of the stupidity of the people protesting.

Single payer will not lead to death panels or euthanizing segments of society. And anyone who asserts it will should not ever be taken seriously about.

[Das Leben der Anderen]

"We're arguing about which color to paint the lifeboats."

Color DOES make a difference. Paint them seafoam and they'll never be spotted.

[Pro Libertate]

At least you're implying that single payer is the likely end goal. Even that's getting denied officially, which shifts the debate from reality to Healthcare Disney.

I don't think Death Panels are actually intended by anyone, and I operate under the assumption that this is just hyperbole by opponents of the plan. However, I have seen some of the language that led to this accusation, and it was inartfully drafted. I suspect many other provisions are similarly weak and subject to misinterpretation. Of course, when one is talking about legislation, such misinterpretation isn't just an issue for the debate over the bill, it's also an extremely serious issue when it comes to the implementation of the law in the future.

The increased politicization of rationing, by the way, is a likely consequence of single payer. Not Death Panels, but not Life Panels, either.

[ChicagoTom]

Come on, CT, that's hardly an exhaustive list of competing ideas

What competing ideas? The people showing up to town halls aren't offering alternatives, they are offering slogans.

You have people yelling "socialism" , you have people on medicare or getting VA health care yelling about "getting the government out of the health care".

You have people yelling about rationing, when right now you are being rationed by the insurance companies.

You have people saying medical decisions should be between the patient and the doctor, without acknowleging that right now, that's not the way it is. It's between you , your doctor, and your insurance adjuster and their bean counters.

None of these people are putting forth any type of alternative proposals or offering any ideas. (Because the insurance /health industries that are funding these groups and sending out talking points don't want change. They make good money now of the sick, and what that to continue). And they also are completely dishonest about what is being proposed.

[ed]

A "panel" of bureaucrats, given the power to decide which treatments will be approved, rationed or denied, could--if you project the consequences--be called a "death panel," though the administrators would put a happy face on it and call it a "life panel."

[R C Dean]

Single payer will not lead to death panels or euthanizing segments of society. And anyone who asserts it will should not ever be taken seriously about.

But the bill does contain the bureaucratic structure to limit care, which can easily be used to deny expensive life-saving treatments.

And his advisors do support the use of Quality Adjusted Life Years or similar methodologies to determine whether you will qualify for certain procedures.

So, your assertion that this bill could never lead to bureacrats denying life-saving care is more an expression of faith than anything else.

[ChicagoTom]

However, I have seen some of the language that led to this accusation, and it was inartfully drafted.

You mean GOP Senator Isakson end of life amendment (it should have been called the Schiavo amendment) -- that allows people to plan and formally present how they want their end of life treatment to happen? To avoid the next Terry Schiavo-style fiasco?
Here is his statement before the wingnuts forced him to walk it back.

I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.

[Das Leben der Anderen]

"The people showing up to town halls aren't offering alternatives, they are offering slogans."

Bullshit. Please peddle it elsewhere.

[R C Dean]

None of these people are putting forth any type of alternative proposals or offering any ideas.

I consider "kill this bill, and never bring another one like it" to be a perfectly valid idea.

Just because you want to do something, doesn't mean that anyone else has to agree that "something must be done" and offering competing ways of reaching your strategic goal.

[Das Leben der Anderen]

"None of these people are putting forth any type of alternative proposals or offering any ideas. "

Even if that were true (and it isn't) that's no reason for the citizens of this country to eat shit.

[ChicagoTom]

A "panel" of bureaucrats, given the power to decide which treatments will be approved, rationed or denied, could--if you project the consequences--be called a "death panel," though the administrators would put a happy face on it and call it a "life panel."

As opposed to a panel of accountants and actuaries doing the same thing in the private sector?

So, your assertion that this bill could never lead to bureacrats denying life-saving care is more an expression of faith than anything else.

THis is what the insurance industry already does.

So why aren't we railing against insurance death panels?

[ChicagoTom]

Just because you want to do something, doesn't mean that anyone else has to agree that "something must be done" and offering competing ways of reaching your strategic goal.

The majority of the country wants something done.

Just because you and your fringe groups don't want to change the crappy system we have (where the haves get good health care and the have nots dont), doesnt mean we have to continue eating shit.

[Das Leben der Anderen]

"As opposed to a panel of accountants and actuaries doing the same thing in the private sector?"

Can you link to an example of this actually happening?

[ChicagoTom]

Even if that were true (and it isn't) that's no reason for the citizens of this country to eat shit.

I agree... that's why we need to reform the system. Cuz right now we are eating shit.

[ed]

So why aren't we railing against insurance death panels?

Free minds and free death panels.

[Pro Libertate]

No one who is at all honest is disputing that this bill is intended to be the first step towards single payer. For that reason alone, a great number of Americans are likely to oppose the bill. Naturally, the focus of the protests is on stopping the bill. No one calling the shots in DC has shown the slightest interest in taking healthcare reform in a different direction. It's like protesting the invasion of Afghanistan--you just want to stop the war, but it doesn't mean that you wouldn't offer alternatives to dealing with al Qaeda if anyone would listen to you.

I certainly don't feel a need to read every part of the bill or every counterproposal that operates on the same premise. Deregulation, not government usurpation of what's left of the free market, is a reform that is much more likely to actually improve U.S. healthcare.

[ChicagoTom]

Can you link to an example of this actually happening?

are you kidding me?

There have been tons of examples where insurance companies have denied paying for life saving/ extending care. That's why the put limits on annual and lifetime payouts. That's also why they use recission.

People who have dealt with it have shown up to town hall meetings and talked about it and have been shouted down with screams of "liar".

[ed]

If nothing else emerges from this debate,
there will be at least one new metal band called DEATH PANEL.

[ChicagoTom]

Deregulation, not government usurpation of what's left of the free market, is a reform that is much more likely to actually improve U.S. healthcare.

Talk about a Statement of faith.

De-regulating and allowing insurance companies to basically do whatever they want is going to help the poor and middle class how exactly?

When a company makes money by denying coverage as much as possible and has a financial incentive to only taking healthy people on as customers, how is that going to benefit everyone?

There's a reason why the rest of the industrialized world has some form of universal coverage.

[hmm]

Just because you and your fringe groups don't want to change the crappy system we have (where the haves get good health care and the have nots dont), doesnt mean we have to continue eating shit.

Reading comprehension, is again key. I'm pretty sure everyone here wants the system to change. Of course if you follow the official talking points a dislike of the current attempt to change is the equivalent wanting to maintain the status quo. Which is just a lil' false.

[Federal Dog]

"and his advisers, yammering on about Quality Adjusted Life Years as a controlling metric for providing care"

Holy f*&king sh*t. Anyone not demanding to know who will be making the necessary "quality adjustment" determinations has, in cognitive terms, flatlined.

[squarooticus]

ChicagoTom:

Cuz right now we are eating shit.

Says you. My health insurance provides me with fantastic health coverage. I am under no illusion that the existing system is ideal (even for me) or sustainable, but I guarantee that my coverage under ObamaCare would be worse than what I receive now, and eat a much higher percentage of my paycheck. No solution with government taking a larger role is going to be otherwise, and therefore I am 100% against any mandated universal health coverage that isn't government rationing care to those who can't afford it but getting the hell out of the way for those of us who can, which means pretty much what Mackey has proposed.

[ChicagoTom]

No one who is at all honest is disputing that this bill is intended to be the first step towards single payer. For that reason alone, a great number of Americans are likely to oppose the bill.

I dont think that's true.

Unless you start poisoning the discussion with bullshit like the government is going to decide who lives and who dies and the elderly are going to be euthanized -- americans really don't mind a single payer option.

The polling showed stronger support for a governmnet plan before the lies and distortions.

[Das Leben der Anderen]

"are you kidding me? "

Are you dodging me?

[ed]

Problem is, there's almost no coherent opposition in the other political party. When asked by lefty pundits, "Well, what's your plan?" they stammer and hedge. The correct response, of course, would be, "Our plan is to kill this plan." But nobody on the right has the balls to say it publicly.

[Das Leben der Anderen]

"De-regulating and allowing insurance companies to basically do whatever they want is going to help the poor and middle class how exactly?"

Where in the Constitution does it say the role of government is to help the poor and middle class?

I say, fuck 'em.

[ChicagoTom]

I'm pretty sure everyone here wants the system to change.

Sure you want to change the system. In terrible ways. You want to basically let insurance companies do what they want and let anyone who can't afford it to die.

Other than deregulating an industry that should be heavily regulated, what are you proposing to insure more people have access to quality health care at affordable prices?

Cuz I see lots of smack talk about Obama care and very little other than "lets deregulate".

[hmm]

I dont think that's true.

Why not? More than one person involved in the reform of health care has stated the end goal as single payer. I'm curious why you don't think that is the end goal.

[Pro Libertate]

CT,

But in a private system, a patient has alternatives. In single payer, one set of bureaucrats is your last hope. An friend of mine moved to Canada some years ago, and she retained U.S. insurance--at great expense to her--just to avoid that kind of problem (she had a heart condition). This is a crazed, leftwing artist I'm talking about, too.

Statement of faith? This system got worse as the government increased its involvement. The industry is heavily regulated already, and the government already directly controls at least a third of all healthcare, and indirectly influences as an economic player at least another third. So, yeah, deregulation would involve less status quo than single payer.

I find it highly unlikely that the most Americans--the vast majority of which have health insurance and adequate medical care--want socialized medicine. And you're committing the same sin as the administration--every criticism of this plan is not lies and distortions. And you're also begging the question when you say that this is an industry that needs to be "heavily regulated." Why?

[hmm]

Sure you want to change the system. In terrible ways. You want to basically let government do what they want and let anyone who isn't statistically viable die.

The silly hyperbole is incredibly similar.

[hmm]

Cuz I see lots of smack talk about Obama care and very little other than "lets deregulate".

You're on a limited government free market based site. WTF do you expect? The first two things that will be mentioned are removal of government from the system, which inherently leads to deregulation.

[Tulpa]

ChiTom,

I think deregulation in this context primarily means (a) getting rid of the FDA, which drives up drug costs and prevents lives from being saved, (b) removing the AMA's authority to tell med schools how many doctors they can produce, (c) repealing emergency room laws that prevent hospitals from redirecting people with minor injuries to an urgent care center, and (d) getting rid of state laws against nurses and phys assts giving certain kinds of care.

It definitely doesn't mean allowing insurance companies to break contracts.

[ChicagoTom]

The silly hyperbole is incredibly similar.

What is hyperbolic.

I see people here saying that they way to fix the system is to deregulate it. Not to alter or loosen regulations, but to deregulate.

Basically you want the wild west in the health insurance market.

If am wrong, please tell me how/where I am wrong?

[ed]

Life isn't fair, Moscow Tom. There's no guarantee of health and happiness in the Constitution. But cheer up. Most Americans agree with you, philosophically. They just differ on the details.

[hmm]

Other than deregulating an industry that should be heavily regulated, what are you proposing to insure more people have access to quality health care at affordable prices?

An industry like banks? Insurance is regulated at a state level. Banks are regulated at state and federal levels and probably at 100 times the intrusion of insurance. How is that working out? I swear if you mention the repeal of Glass-Steagal you will lose all credibility.

[Episiarch]

And Tom continues his slide into parody. What made you decide to become a joe-troll, Tom? I'm curious.

Frank: (singing during rehearsal) You want this baby boy's hole, / You gotta pay the troll toll-

Charlie: Stop, stop, stop, stop. All right, uh ... not bad. Good rhythm, love the enthusiasm. I feel like you're saying "boy's hole," and it's clearly "soul"...

[Pro Libertate]

While I personally think massive deregulation (state and federal) is in order and would improve the system, I'd be happy with just some deregulation that removed barriers to entry for insurers (a big part of the problem) and provided consumers with more alternatives. Shoot, let Wal-Mart open some clinics with, I dunno, Chinese doctors or something.

[Das Leben der Anderen]

"If am wrong, please tell me how/where I am wrong?"

in the crazy/brain.

[hmm]

I see people here saying that they way to fix the system is to deregulate it. Not to alter or loosen regulations, but to deregulate.

I didn't know the word deregulation was an absolute removal of all regulation. You learn something new everyday. Or not. Again the hyperbole of "OMG DEREGULATION WILD WEST!!!" is bullshit.

[Tulpa]

Basically you want the wild west in the health insurance market.

No, I want health insurance companies to be bound by their contracts.

[hmm]

Too much huffpo bro. You need a little time away.

[ed]

I understand Wyatt Earp couldn't get health insurance.

[The Angry Optimist]

guys, please don't engage CT - he pretty much lies to "win" the argument.

[J sub D]

Single payer will not lead to death panels or euthanizing segments of society. And anyone who asserts it will should not ever be taken seriously about.

Your social security number will never be a national identification number. And anyone who asserts it will should not ever be taken seriously.

[ChicagoTom]

WTF do you expect?

Honestly, I expect a more nuanced/intellegent discussion than "let's derefulate insurance" coupled with "lefties hate profits and EVIL CORPURASHUNS"

(a) getting rid of the FDA, which drives up drug costs and prevents lives from being saved

I'm on board with this, to an extent. Or at the very least changing the way it does it's work. There should be some agency (private or public) testing claims of safety and efficacy of drugs. And there should be a way to penalize companies that put out dangerous drugs.

(b) removing the AMA's authority to tell med schools how many doctors they can produce,

I'm on board with this too.

(c) repealing emergency room laws that prevent hospitals from redirecting people with minor injuries to an urgent care center,

this one i agree with partially, but has to be done in a way that clearly defines what is a "minor injury"

(d) getting rid of state laws against nurses and phys assts giving certain kinds of care.

Agree...Same thing with dentists and hygenists.

--

Having said that, politcally speaking do you think any of this stuff is possible? Doctors don't want Phys Assitants and Nurses to be able to see patients because it will cut into their bottom line (same with dentits). They also don't want too many docotors out there.

This is where I get frustrated -- the same people that want to government out of the health care business also want the government to limit competition.

Since I don't think these things you proposed will ever happen (esp. a, b, and d) -- my choice is to agitate for change within the system we have or to just live with the status quo.

But even if we did get these type of deregulation passed, why can't there also be a public non-profit insurance option available as a choice for people?

[The Angry Optimist]

government "competition" is nonsense. Any system that is funded by force is going to "win" by default.

[Pro Libertate]

How about private charitable options? I just mentioned this in another thread, but we certainly have sufficient numbers of people willing to help to support a private option, if the government were to exit the charity business. In the past, too, mutual aid societies played a significant role in getting medical care to people too poor or otherwise unable to get it through traditional means.

[ChicagoTom]

And Tom continues his slide into parody. What made you decide to become a joe-troll, Tom? I'm curious.

So engaging and disagreeing with stupid libertarian dogma is trolling? Good to know.

Apparently anyone who disagrees with the concept of health care being merely privelage that should be afforded to only those who can afford it is a troll.

But in a private system, a patient has alternatives. In single payer, one set of bureaucrats is your last hope. An friend of mine moved to Canada some years ago, and she retained U.S. insurance--at great expense to her--just to avoid that kind of problem (she had a heart condition). This is a crazed, leftwing artist I'm talking about, too.

First -- Single payer isn't on the table. the public option would be an option just like any other insurance. Yet somehow that's ineherntly bad or limiting your choices? Why? It would be no different than insurance. Whether it's the beaurcrats that are my last hope or the actuaries and the bean counters.

Second, Most people don't really have choices.
They have what their employer chose. And the insurance company already limits my choices -- whether it's how much money they will spend per year or over the life time of the policy, whether it's shich doctors I can see or not based on my network, whether certain procedures/drugs are covered or not.

So I guess I don't see why its less objectionable in practice when the insurnace companies do this since the choice isn't mine anyway, but my employers.

Sure I could buy private insurance, but that could be an option even in a single payer system. A single payer system doesn't have to outlaw private insurance. And people who can afford private insurance could be able to go and get it.

[ChicagoTom]

Any system that is funded by force is going to "win" by default.

Right, because the USPS has driven UPS and FedEx out of the package shipping business.

How about private charitable options? I just mentioned this in another thread, but we certainly have sufficient numbers of people willing to help to support a private option, if the government were to exit the charity business. In the past, too, mutual aid societies played a significant role in getting medical care to people too poor or otherwise unable to get it through traditional means.

Charities wouldn't be able to cover all of the current unsinsured and supplement the underinsured, would they ?

Furthermore, charitable contributions tend to decrease during economic downturns. (In Illinois, there were a couple of childrens charities that we scrambling to find more funding because of the econmic downturn and were worried that kids would have to be taken out of the hospitals becuase of a downturn in charitable contributions)

[Episiarch]

So engaging and disagreeing with stupid libertarian dogma is trolling? Good to know.

You've specifically amped up your rhetoric and adopted a joe-style confrontational attitude. That's why I said "joe-troll" and not "troll".

Denying it just makes you look stupid. The question was "why"? Try answering it. Really, I'm curious.

[The Angry Optimist]

Is USPS funded by government, CT? Get your shit straight.

[B.P.]

"Sure I could buy private insurance, but that could be an option even in a single payer system. A single payer system doesn't have to outlaw private insurance. And people who can afford private insurance could be able to go and get it."

Hypothetical -- The U.S. goes to a single payer system that allows private health insurance plans (not bloody likely, but...). So a two-tiered system develops where people with more money acquire additional insurance because the single-payer option sucks. How long before the government takes over the private market because it's unfair that some are getting more/better care than others, health care is a right, blah, blah, blah...?

[Das Leben der Anderen]

"Denying it just makes you look stupid. The question was "why"? Try answering it. Really, I'm curious."

I'm guessing Tony's drunken redneck lover paid CT a visit late last night.

[Pro Libertate]

B.P. raises a valid point. Also, won't doctors in a dual system likely start rejecting patients who don't have private insurance? Some already do that with Medicare, I believe. In any case, if that started to happen, the government would almost certainly intervene, likely to force doctors to accept the public insurance.

Most of the more honest readings of the plan (including from some proponents) seem to accept that this will ultimately lead to single payer. Government as provider and as regulator simply would hold too many of the cards. Not to mention that it can always opt to steal from tax revenues to destroy any competition.

[CommunismRocks!]

My favorite are the people who are on fucking medicare who are yelling keep the government out of my health care. Idiots.

New line Communist reformer complains about the old line socialist apparatchik. Guess what? You both have shit for brains.

[Harry Nobber]

The wizened old sorcerer sat on the floor as the young, liberal apprentice approached.

"I have something for you," he said.

The excited young liberal's eyes widened.

"It is a magical emblem. Here, take it."

"What does it do?"

"Rub it and see," The wizard insisted,

From the emblem a hologram appeared. An angry, old man shouting up at the podium where a tenderfoot politician stood and squirmed. The angry old man yelled, "Don't let the government get its hands on my Medicare."

The liberal apprentice gasped, "Wow. I now . . . feel . . . so Superior!"

"Yes. Yes, " the wizard agreed. "This will provide you much in the way of personal validation upon which you must pathologically cling for such is your lot."

"I must tell them about this at HuffPo!"

"They already know, at 27 post a second all on the man who shouted, "Don't let the government get its hands on my Medicare."

[Tulpa]

Having said that, politcally speaking do you think any of this stuff is possible? Doctors don't want Phys Assitants and Nurses to be able to see patients because it will cut into their bottom line (same with dentits). They also don't want too many docotors out there.

The stuff I mentioned is going to be waaay more politically possible than upending the entire health care system as the Dems are proposing. True, the AMA would be up in arms, but they would have a seriously hard time agitating the average voter into action as has happened with Obama's plan.

Also, these fairly small changes to our health care system would produce A TON of savings, and could easily be reversed if some unforeseen problem developed after they're enacted. Not so with ObamaCare.

[Tulpa]

I should add that while I don't think the FDA, or any govt agency like it, should exist at all, I would tolerate an agency that tested drug safety, not efficacy. The latter is much harder to show and it is perfectly reasonable to let the market judge that, as we let it do with pretty much every other product out there.

[Larry the Cable Guy]

Mr. O-bam-a wants me to share my view on healthcare reform wit my constitincy. Just trust dis here feller.

Git-R-Done!!!

[Kevin P.]

I immediately thought of former Attorney General John Ashcroft's notorious declaration in December 2001: "to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."...

The Ashcroft quote is selectively misleading. The entire quote and its context is here:

We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.

Considerably different when you read the whole thing, right?

[highnumber]

Kevin P.,
As your quote is punctuated (and as it would read regardless, but the punctuation emphasizes it), he addresses "those who pit Americans against immigrants and citizens against non-citizens," then he addresses "those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty." Taking out the first group does not change the context of the message to the second.
No, it is not considerably different when you read the whole thing.

[ChicagoTom]

Is USPS funded by government, CT? Get your shit straight.

Who the fuck funds the US Postal service shit head? The fucking governmnet that's who.

[ChicagoTom]

You've specifically amped up your rhetoric and adopted a joe-style confrontational attitude. That's why I said "joe-troll" and not "troll".

I've had to amp it up to match with up with the rhetoric of the loons dominating the comments who scream "Emperor Obama" -- "SOCIALIST" -- "Death panels are the logical end of the dems health reform agenda" -- "LIBERALS HATE PROFITS" -- "EVIL CORPRASHUNS" -- "Liberals want to control your life".

And I am more confrontational because that's how people have been responding to me when I dare to deny libertarian dogma and when I dare to state my belief that the free market will not solve the health care crisis or when I have the audacity to propose that yes the government should pay for health care for it's citizens like every other first world country.

If people around here were more respectful of opposing viewpoints, maybe I wouldn't need to be so confrontational. But since Obama got elected the liberal hate has been cranked up to 11 so I have responded in kind.

[Pro Libertate]

Liberal hate should go up, because liberals are in power. It's a cyclical thing, really ?

[The Angry Optimist]

Who the fuck funds the US Postal service shit head? The fucking governmnet that's who.

Wrong. Go look it up, if you want.

[highnumber]

TAO,
Have you looked it up?

[hmm]

There is some shady guberment accounting that goes on over at the USPS. You almost need to dig through legislation to figure out where some money comes from, if you know what I mean.

[highnumber]

To get the full extent, maybe. Otherwise the $3B that they list in their financial highlights is pretty easy to spot.

[Federal Dog]

"But since Obama got elected the liberal hate has been cranked up to 11 so I have responded in kind."

You're a real genius.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Plenty of us can handle opposing viewpoints, ChicagoTom. You used to be cool. What happened?

[highnumber]

Tom gets a little testy and y'all pile on, wait, maybe that was the other way around...

[Sean Healy]

We have a two-tiered system in Ireland which somehow still manages to suck for everybody, no matter how much money the government pours in. And, yeah, as people have predicted, the government stacks the deck against private insurers by forcing risk equalisation payments from the more successful newcomer insurers to the old semi-state insurer (which has lots of old, sick people for customers). Awesome levels of waste and truly underwhelming health outcomes.

[Jake]

Right, because the USPS has driven UPS and FedEx out of the package shipping business.

No, but they sure drove Lysander Spooner's American Letter Mail Company out of business by force of law!

And what if FedEx/UPS ever wanted to move from the package shipping business into the First-Class Mail business?