I watched Megyn Kelly interview cancer patient Bill Elliot last night. It brought me to tears. Here's the video.
His medical insurance has been cancelled and he can't afford the ObamaCare replacement policy. He doesn't want to cause his wife and kids financial distress, so he's choosing to die.
Economic death panel.
137 comments:
"Did I do that?"
Yeah but he's probably a tea party person. According the neo-Nazi left, he deserves to die.
People who don't properly worship the king are heretics, terrorists, racists, infidels and hostage takers and they should be jailed or forgotten and left to die. Health care is only for democrats, now. They hate it too, but they will suck it up for the king.
He says in the interview that he voted for Obama.
"...absolutely he misled me, because in fact, I voted for him because that fact...
They [cancelled insurance] were paying just about everything."
Yeah but he's complaining on Fox news. How dare he! Heretic!
(Imagining the frothing seething rage from the left)
Raising the dead and healing the blind is child's play compared to cancer, apparently.
If they'd rather die then perhaps they had better do so and decrease the surplus population.
Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
Lets see how the left goes after this guy now.
They'll walk into the showers willingly for MugabeCare.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
One reason why this interview hit me hard was that I had the same thing Mr. Elliot has - kidney cancer.
Mine was resolved with surgery and post-surgical treatments. I just passed the four-year anniversary mark with no evidence of mets.
If my insurance had been cancelled part-way through treatment I would have made the same decision he has - to stop treatment rather than impoverish my family.
Thank God I didn't have to make that decision.
So, my snark aside, this is horrifying.
The Democrats are literally killing people by Obamacare.
And their response is to tell us to shut up and eat our broccoli.
Death Panels? Canx insurance?
But Sarah Palin was the stupid one..
It should hit home for anyone with cancer or in need of a life saving treatment. Soon, the left get their way as we slide into single payer, a 100% tax payer funded system. The built-in limitations placed on everyone needing life-saving treatments or care will be eye opening. But yes, the left do not give a rip. It's free!
Screw quality & access... it's free!
Never mind what this is going to do to medical innovations.
To the AARP and all the insurance companies who climbed into bed with Obama/Pelosi/Reid - screw you.
I'll stand in for Ritmo and ARM here:
Don't you people care about the 400 billion people who were uninsured, but now can be?
We're completely out of stock on hope, but we still got plenty of change for you.
And just remember, Obamacare is brought to you by the same people who advocate open borders and open-ended borrowing from China so that we can provide free health-care and education to illegal aliens. (we print the money and the Chinese pretend it's real and buy our bonds so they can sell us stuff to keep their factories running and prevent the natives from getting restless.) To quote Freeman Hunt: "Free Chinese Ponies for everyone!"
I'd say to Rimto and ARM - what is the direction?
How many millions of people kicked out of their "You can keep your plan it you like it"
will it take for you to wake the hell up and admit you were wrong?
never!
@April Apple
How many eggs does it take to make an omelette?
Isn't the Fed the largest purchaser of US Bonds? Aren't we buying our own debt using fiat currency?
What could possibly go wrong?
6 eggplants.
Rush had a story of a couple in San Fransico that voted for Obama, got their insurance jacked up but were not blaming Obama. Amazing.
That's racist!
What could possibly go wrong?
THE motto of twenty-first century America. We should put that on the currency.
But MugabeCare has electrolytes!
And electrodes!
But does it have anal probes? I mean, will it cover my prostate exam?
Or am I only covered for birth control pills and maternity?
My dad died of non-Hodgkin lymphoma 3 years ago this month. He was relatively young and in great shape. He worked as a mechanic for a local shop for almost 30 years. I'm not sure what kind of premiums he was paying (or the shop), but I know that it had to be fairly reasonable because after working somewhere for so long, you know the owner's profit margins aren't large. They're good, honest people who are trying to do what's best for their employees and customers.
Anyways, his journey through cancer and treatments was remarkable for how easy it was. He had really good doctors. The bills were reasonable. There wasn't a lot of red tape haggling over treatment options or paying for it. They were planning on doing a bone marrow transplant, but he turned for the worst and he saw the writing on the wall.
And yet after all that, my Democrat for life father said, "that damned insurance company must be happy they don't have to pay for a bone marrow transplant." My brother and I just looked at each other in disbelief. "Dad, they've been good to you."
But we've got to vilify and blame someone. Because Obama.
I'm glad this guy is able to change his mind.
MugabeCare has free colonoscopies for those who clench their buttocks in a traffic stop.
Well free, after the $6K deductible.
Well free, after the $6K deductible.
Sorry, MugabeCare only has a $6T deductible.
Snark, Pogo, yes, but high quality snark!
You've got Scrooge, Manchurian Candidate, Wilfred Owen, Stalin and Idiocracy.
I'm impressed.
Combined, as many as 52 million Americans could lose or have lost old insurance plans.
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."
-King Obama, our lord and savior
Jesus had been quoted as saying, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me."
Yet earlier this week, Jesus tweaked His promise, acknowledging that salvation plans that have been substantially changed since the crucifixion would no longer be grandfathered into acceptance under the Christian Salvation Act.
“Obviously we didn't do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the afterlife," Jesus said in the interview Thursday.
"And, you know, that’s something I regret. That’s something we’re gonna do everything we can to get fixed ... We’re looking at a range of options.”
I'd call Obama an Indian giver, but that'd be like racist to the third power or something.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have no promises to keep,
And putts to make before I sleep,
And putts to make before I sleep.
And so with lie upon lie
Obanocchio's nose grew and grew,
And he feared he would
never become a real boy.
There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and Democrats.
Icepick said...
... will it cover my prostate exam?
For conservatives, the prostate exams will be administered by the IRS. At least, it will feel that way.
If you like your cancer you can keep it.
You guys are being pretty hard on Romneycare. He really did mean well and actually didn't hate half the population.
If you like your cancer you can keep it.
It'll be the first promise Obama keeps.
And Ritmo, most conservatives don't much care for Romneycare, or Romney, for that matter.
I found the website that Ignorance is Bliss was talking about!
Always good to define what one stands for in terms of what one hates, Ice. I think you'll find many tremendously successful political leaders who took that approach.
Yes, Ritmo, and shockingly almost all of them are leftists.
You know, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Ayers, Barack Obama, etc.
Interestingly, your knowledge of political leadership seems cluttered with Nazis.
No one thought Obama ran a negative campaign. You're mistaking inspiration with Nazism -- not that I'm surprised. Also, you might want to check into what San Franciscans think of their congressional representation. And their quality of life. My guess is it's better than what Republicans think of Boehner, or the quality of life of his actual constituents.
Look to Kasich, instead. You can't make a case out of bad coverage for one (supposedly) when you didn't give a shit about bad (or nonexistent) coverage for 40 million.
Which leads me to see that Bag O's counting skills seem off today. That's not a good sign for a pretend-CEO. Being off by a factor of 10,000 does not exactly make for good executive material.
Also, Bill Ayers never ran for office.
Isn't there a FOX intern who could check your talking points for accuracy first? Or is she busy being sweet-talked by O'Reilly and getting felafel sandwiches?
The man appears to have southern accent and misconjugates verbs -- isn't that reason enough for Ritmo to question his humanity? I know it would work for Inga.
And suppose he has a Confederate flag in his closet?
Suppose he does.
THe question is, do you care about his coverage or not, and if you do, why no else's prior to 2009?
Don't you think you make yourself look a bit phony caring about a situation only when a politician you dislike could arguably do something about it?
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/11/08/colorado-woman-who-championed-obamacare-loses-insurance-plan/
So apparently the "crowd" here doesn't care whether there are more winners than losers with the ACA or without. They just care whether or not Obama and any legislation he signed is perfect.
I see. No wonder they're having trouble finding decent candidates to run.
“'As we work through all of this I think that a year from now people overall are going to be very, very happy with the way the Affordable Care Act is working,' DeGette said."
Obama is Lebron baby, they got this.
@Ritmo: you can't sugar coat that most people will pay more and get less under ObamaCare in the long run. It's a bitter, bitter pill.
@Ritmo: You also can'r spin away that Obama lied and deceived people to get the bill to pass without public outcry.
Why is it so damn important for you to shovel dirt for Obama, digging his hole even deeper?
As Christie hinted, why can't this guy admit mistakes?
Doesn't he understand that people are forgiving, but not forgetting?
You're right: I can't sugar coat bullshit that you pulled from your ass and will undoubtedly refuse to source or cite.
For chrissakes, you're a chemist and couldn't even be bothered in a post you uploaded on the joys of fracking to cite a single reference on the solvents used or the durability of the wells it used. So why would I expect you to cite what you just said? It might even be true, for all I know - but given how quickly you make things up, that's not worth taking on faith.
And finally, you refer to one relevant metric and one that's completely irrelevant, and even negligently misleading. "Getting more (or) less" is a bullshit metric in medicine as any physician will tell you that the resources are overused for those who have insurance. That in turn drives up the costs. What is so hard to get about poorly allocated resources and inefficient markets?
For this, our outcomes are worse. So clearly more utilization does not equal a good outcome, just as eating enough supplies of Doritos to become morbidly obese is not the solution to fear of starvation.
So, if you're going to avoid the issue of availability of market resources to tens of millions of Americans, and how they lack it, you could at least bring up a countervailing metric that's decided with enough competent research to even be worth bringing up, let alone discussing.
I'm no fan of Vanity Fair but my wife reads it. Drudge put up a link today strongly criticizing the President.
Why can't you put your guard down for two seconds and be honest instead of always jerking your knee out to kick people for being critical of Obama and accusing them of being part of the New Confederacy?
All of those question were rhetorical.
You also can'r spin away that Obama lied and deceived people to get the bill to pass without public outcry.
I didn't subject the man to a polygraph, but I can't stop you from thinking you can see inside his heart.
Why is it so damn important for you to shovel dirt for Obama, digging his hole even deeper?
This is not about Obama. Stop being a leader-worshipping nut-lackey! It's about whether spending less in aggregate to insure many more (and not simply WASTE more resources) is better or not. You are avoiding THAT question! And it's an incredibly simple one.
As Christie hinted, why can't this guy admit mistakes?
Doesn't he understand that people are forgiving, but not forgetting?
I neither forget the guy who told Ron Paul to let the man die nor forgive your silence/obfuscation on that.
You didn't care and still don't care about tens of millions with no coverage - unless you can make political hay out of ONE. That's a set of warped, immoral priorities that I will never be forgiving of.
For chrissakes, you're a chemist and couldn't even be bothered in a post you uploaded on the joys of fracking to cite a single reference on the solvents used or the durability of the wells it used.
I did post such a list in the form of link. Apparently you didn't see it because it was after you flounced off that night.
Check the date stamps.
I can be honest with people who aren't so warped as to confuse one case with tens of millions of similar cases - simply because of who the president is.
Actually, I am being honest with that person. But that person can't then turn around and blame his inability to have a coherent discussion about that topic on me.
This is not about Obama
Signature legislation?
No, you did upload those links - but only after hours of prodding by me and tons of levity from you about it in return. Check the time stamps on that, too.
So we come around again to the question of what are your priorities.
Signature legislation?
One of those words is more important to me than the other. But apparently not to you.
I neither forget the guy who told Ron Paul to let the man die nor forgive your silence/obfuscation on that.
And I can't forget your support Sullivan's smears of Palin. I have them bookmarked.
See where this goes?
@Ritmo: It doesn't matter what you or I think about Obama or ObamaCare.
I'm outta here now to seek some levity.
What support of smears? You have a problem with a writer, and the same writer that I have other problems with I don't see as completely useless when it comes to what I'm able to learn from. Yes, if you're going to make everything about associations then you're bound to go nowhere, but I'm not the one doing that. I'm actually asking, vis a vis the legislation, what are YOUR priorities? Not John Boehner's. Not Freedom Works. What are your priorities for health care regulation? Or do you need a political lens through which to view and answer that question first?
Rhythm and Balls said...
No, you did upload those links - but only after hours of prodding by me and tons of levity from you about it in return.
You didn't expect me to know those recipes off the top of my head just because I'm a chemist did you? Of course I had to go looking for them -- and in a source I thought was impartial.
Here's a prediction: Titus shows up to write something chirbit-worthy.
No one thought Obama ran a negative campaign?
I bet Romney did.
Remember when he gave that woman cancer? And he was going to take away all the women's tampons (before putting them in binders, I guess)? And was gonna put all the black people back in chains?
Or maybe you consider that positive campaigning.
I'm outta here now to seek some levity.
Like I said about priorities…
Never let false concern for the sick and dying get in the way of, well,…
Priorities.
It's about whether spending less in aggregate to insure many more (and not simply WASTE more resources) is better or not. You are avoiding THAT question! And it's an incredibly simple one.
It's so simple, it can't be answered by a 2,300 page law with 12,000 pages of supporting regulations.
But I'll answer it for you: It doesn't matter. To answer in aggregate is to lend legitimacy to those who would presume to answer it on all our behalves.
It's not even that nobody has all the necessary data, or that nobody is that smart, it's that no one has the right to coerce others in that fashion.
America: What a concept.
You didn't expect me to know those recipes off the top of my head just because I'm a chemist did you? Of course I had to go looking for them -- and in a source I thought was impartial.
But isn't that kind of the entire point? Fracking's been an issue on your radar for how long? It's been discussed in the popular media and conservative media for at least as long. It took until my comment last month for you to take seriously a widely noted concern and interest in the contents and health/environmental effects of the solvents and leakiness of the pipes?
SCOTUS disagrees with you Blake and to pretend that health care wasn't already massively regulated since the same Medicare that you know no election will ever rid us of (just poorly so) is balderdash. It was just as regulated before, only horribly incompetently so. Stop kidding yourself. You're an intelligent man and saying things that remind me of the "GOV'T HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE" signs. We need intelligent voices and critics to get the right balance so jump in the fray but do it in a way that doesn't pretend an electrified ideological barrier was breached any more than it was in 1965 or when Abraham Flexner regulated medical education and training a century ago.
I don't think Obama's most memorable 2008 campaign was very negative at all.
Romney OTOH is a pretty slick SOB. Going after him in just as underhanded a way I therefore consider not too far beneath him. Unless you think a guy with the misfortune of having a station in life that Romney looks down on, as a waiter serving assholes who think that half the public (including, apparently, that waiter) is lazy, supplying the public with a tape of Romney outright saying that is somehow nastier and more underhanded than those very comments, and how much of a good-for-nothing jerk-off they revealed Mitt to be.
I don't know that Obama, or any of his surrogates, did anything as negative to Mitt with as much impact as that very tape of his very own words.
But maybe that's how all Republicans think of the poor. Pity that the rest of America doesn't agree with them. Or maybe not such a pity.
As Christie hinted, why can't this guy admit mistakes?
Christie should repeat that often. He could be run against Obama in 2016 when Obama isn't even running.
It worked for Obama, who ran against Bush not once but twice.
Stop being a leader-worshipping nut-lackey
@Ritmo: More and more of the world is starting to wonder about the basic psychology of POTUS. Don't brush this off by saying he's the most sane man in D.C.
He is tending more and more towards autocracy. You cocoon him.
Ritmo is like the last remaining Hitler youth standing on his little mound of rubble in Berlin praising his leader and the bright future for all under the Third Reich.
"If you guys would just stop shooting at us, we could make this work."
But maybe that's how all Republicans think of the poor. Pity that the rest of America doesn't agree with them. Or maybe not such a pity.
Obama must love the poor because he's making so many more of them.
Fisking time!
SCOTUS disagrees with you
Yeah, they get a lot of things wrong. My problem is I'm not smart enough to get things as wrong as they do.
to pretend that health care wasn't already massively regulated
You seem to have a one-man death wish against straw men. I never said it wasn't. In fact, that's precisely the problem.
since the same Medicare that you know no election will ever rid us of
I'm not so certain of that. I've been surprised by things before. Like, the USSR collapsing? Didn't see it coming, at least not when it actually happened. And certainly in not such a (relatively) peaceful way.
In any event, elections will rid us of Medicare, or a revolution will, or simple math will.
(just poorly so) is balderdash.
I think you're extremely agitated and your syntax is suffering badly.
It was just as regulated before, only horribly incompetently so.
Oh, well, that's certainly fixed by the tens of thousands of regulations to come.
Stop kidding yourself.
You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Apparently: disagreeing with you.)
You're an intelligent man
Meh. I'm over-rated. As is intelligence.
and saying things that remind me of the "GOV'T HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE" signs.
I think that may be your problem, actually. Everything reminds you of something else, something else that you hate.
We need intelligent voices and critics to get the right balance so jump in the fray
Thank you for your permission.
but do it in a way that doesn't pretend
I am not a man of pretensions. Well, not on this topic.
an electrified ideological barrier was breached
If someone feels that it was, on what basis will you say they are wrong?
Because a lot of people seem to think that it was.
any more than it was in 1965
That was the toe in the door. The Big Lie that the architects of Medicare knew would lead to our current crisis.
or when Abraham Flexner regulated medical education and training a century ago.
I agree that the problem started there. I've blogged about it before.
Had the medical industry not used the government to protect their dubious trade, we would have a much richer, wilder sort of practice today.
Everyone likes to focus on the quacks. That's how this stuff gets passed. And then they all cluck their heads sadly because the FDA sits on some revolutionary cancer treatment for seven years (or forever, if properly greased), as if this was the inevitable cost of civilization.
Your side likes to say that every piece of claimed ground is forever claimed. "Progress," it's called, without irony.
"Progress" being that some are simply better than others and therefore fit to rule them. Call it DNA, call it "divine right", doesn't really matter.
The only real progress made in the past 1500 years was a bunch of the smartest, most inspired men around getting together and saying, "You know what? We can't really trust ourselves either. Let's set up government with that in mind."
What's not difficult is our basic disagreement: You prefer to be ruled by others. I do not. You prefer to tell others how they should live. I do not. You think forcing others to pay for your ideas and implementing them at gunpoint makes you noble and caring. I think it's far more noble to offer help personally, and never coercively.
And I think your kind, on both the Left and putative Right, are in a desperate against technology that can make all those grand schemes go up in smoke.
But that's perhaps just wishful thinking.
Ritmo is like the last remaining Hitler youth standing on his little mound of rubble in Berlin praising his leader and the bright future for all under the Third Reich.
Godwin Visual
I know, I know, over the top. Ritmo isn't last good soldier... yet.
More and more of the world is starting to wonder about the basic psychology of POTUS.
Again with the lack of cites. And even if you had them, who the hell would care? You don't think that armchair psychoanalysis an under appreciated art, do you? More of this and I hear Glenn Beck's talk of Obama's "deep seated fear of white people". Yep.
Don't brush this off by saying he's the most sane man in D.C.
Actually, not only that, but he seems to be getting a lot further at getting what he wants (and I want) than his opponents. Maybe there a rationalism in him to doing that that you're not appreciating.
He is tending more and more towards autocracy. You cocoon him.
Whatever. You can't even get the most conservative SCOTUS, most of whom stopped an election count, to agree. And Ice brought up the website problems that I think are fair game. That's the problem when a guy like Obama drives you crazy. Everyone else becomes so used to hearing crazy talk that we stopped expecting cogent criticism. But Icepick mentioned it, and it's perfectly legitimate to criticize him for.
In fact, if you stopped fixating on crazy things to dislike about Obama, we might actually have some space to get on with legitimate and useful criticisms of his many human shortcomings. Wouldn't that be something nice!
If Obama shook Ritmo's, hand he'd need to have him surgically removed.
Obama must love the poor because he's making so many more of them.
Not as many as the default-loving Tea Party Congress is making.
I'm confident of how much desperation the Godwining of the thread reveals.
I don't think desperation is on this side of the political divide at the moment, and everyone in the world knows it. Well, maybe not everyone.
Fisking time!
This could get long...
SCOTUS disagrees with you
Yeah, they get a lot of things wrong…
Good luck, then. They're at their zenith of conservative composition.
to pretend that health care wasn't already massively regulated
You seem to have a one-man death wish against straw men. I never said it wasn't. In fact, that's precisely the problem.
Somewhere in Somalia, an anxious doctor is ready to see you.
since the same Medicare that you know no election will ever rid us of
I'm not so certain of that. I've been surprised by things before. Like, the USSR collapsing? Didn't see it coming, at least not when it actually happened. And certainly in not such a (relatively) peaceful way.
I did and I am certain of the former.
Oh, well, that's certainly fixed by the tens of thousands of regulations to come.
If only health care were not complex. Maybe more like Tic tac toe.
Stop kidding yourself.
You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Apparently: disagreeing with you.)
Disagreement is fine. Facts are better.
You're an intelligent man
Meh. I'm over-rated. As is intelligence.
Not as much as irrational policy.
and saying things that remind me of the "GOV'T HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE" signs.
I think that may be your problem, actually. Everything reminds you of something else, something else that you hate.
That guy actually brought what Chickie might refer to (if his humor were better) needed levity to the health care controversy. I'd say "debate", but that would presume too much on the part of the critics.
We need intelligent voices and critics to get the right balance so jump in the fray
Thank you for your permission.
It's not permission. It's a way to invite and encourage a more civil, decent and productive debate on the topic than most conservatives, (including, I'm now sorry to say, you) seem to want.
Godwining is always a desperate move.
Godwining is always a desperate move.
Bags is an effective humorist. I see his mention of 'Dolf as more a "Goodwinning" the thread.
He was just mocking your unswerving loyalty
Not as desperate as lying to 300 million people over and over, passing a bill with only one party support in the dead of night, spending near a billion dollars on a website, and still totally blowing it. That's what you're defending. Have at it genius.
an electrified ideological barrier was breached
If someone feels that it was, on what basis will you say they are wrong?
Well, first of all on the basis that feelings are not facts. That's incredibly important.
Secondly (as if more was needed), on the basis that few on the right feel that Medicare/Medicaid weren't ideological challenges and that few of anyone else feel that they aren't large pieces of regulation.
Third, because health care is complex enough to be treated more complexly, it's a bad argument to keep saying that the only way to simplify and improve things is to let all the complications eat their way through the many market failures they'd been causing.
Because a lot of people seem to think that it was.
any more than it was in 1965
That was the toe in the door. The Big Lie that the architects of Medicare knew would lead to our current crisis.
It's called "compromise" - something that people looking to always prevent the future from coming might be well to heed.
or when Abraham Flexner regulated medical education and training a century ago.
I agree that the problem started there. I've blogged about it before.
Doubtlessly you then also made a point to blog about the many problems that did exist then and were successfully addressed.
Had the medical industry not used the government to protect their dubious trade, we would have a much richer, wilder sort of practice today.
I'm a lucky man to take some psychological comfort from the other definitions of "rich". But wilder, yes. I'd love to see who wants "wilder" health care in America. Maybe a third-world immigrant.
Everyone likes to focus on the quacks. That's how this stuff gets passed. And then they all cluck their heads sadly because the FDA sits on some revolutionary cancer treatment for seven years (or forever, if properly greased), as if this was the inevitable cost of civilization.
Now your own syntax is becoming garbled. Please rephrase, if you want to discuss. I've worked on applications that successfully made it through FDA, if you're interested in an opinion borne of actual experience with this stuff.
Your side likes to say that every piece of claimed ground is forever claimed. "Progress," it's called, without irony.
Whew boy. Holy repetition. We're going back to this? It must be a sore point. As I said, if you really want to repeat Medicare/Medicaid, do it openly, and not clandestinely. That way, Republicans don't come across like the Obama broken promise of keeping care, magnified exponentially.
"Progress" being that some are simply better than others and therefore fit to rule them. Call it DNA, call it "divine right", doesn't really matter.
Of course, where would an American conservative's rhetoric and talking points be if he couldn't pretend to appropriate every linguistic device invented by famous anti-fascist British socialist-liberal, George Orwell! Perhaps there are other things you could learn from the man you love to quote, like what he actually believed in, for one.
The only real progress made in the past 1500 years was a bunch of the smartest, most inspired men around getting together and saying, "You know what? We can't really trust ourselves either. Let's set up government with that in mind."
Problem solved for those of us happy with a government of, by and for the people. Not so much with those struggling to incorporate populism into their own damn party.
What's not difficult is our basic disagreement: You prefer to be ruled by others. I do not. You prefer to tell others how they should live. I do not. You think forcing others to pay for your ideas and implementing them at gunpoint makes you noble and caring. I think it's far more noble to offer help personally, and never coercively.
Not worthy of dignifying with a response. Suffice it to say it sounds like a massive amount of projection, given how much distrust of others and condescension of the population as a whole conservatism requires.
And I think your kind, on both the Left and putative Right, are in a desperate against technology that can make all those grand schemes go up in smoke.
Think first, then write. Your long missive is starting to miss some crucial words, methinks. But it's your argument; and you can't rely on me to make it for you. Unless the GOP penchant for outsourcing really has gone that far.
But that's perhaps just wishful thinking.
Apparently wishful writing too, as we just noticed.
I wish this night would go better for you.
It's been an intelligence test all along, and now even after the test has been graded an "F", some are insisting the test is wrong. Learning disabled maybe?
Not as desperate as lying to 300 million people over and over, passing a bill with only one party support in the dead of night, spending near a billion dollars on a website, and still totally blowing it. That's what you're defending. Have at it genius.
And you're defending the abject laziness of instead doing absolutely nothing, while sending people to Washington to get paid and collect influence for it. Have at it, genius.
" it sounds like a massive amount of projection, given how much distrust of others and condescension of the population as a whole conservatism requires."
I'll just repeat that for demonstration purposes. I couldn't show your delusion any better if I tried.
"And you're defending the abject laziness of instead doing absolutely nothing"
"We have a problem, we need to do something. We're doing something, so it must be the right thing. Hey, I'm a scientist."
Repeat it as much as you want, Baggie of Vinegar. Tell me what "conservatives" wanted to conserve in 1776, or in 1860. The status quo at those times didn't sound too trusting of the people, did it.
But go ahead and instead make up to yourself the lie that tells you that FDR was elitist, that JFK was condescending (surely not trusting the people like Nixon did!), that LBJ enslaved us, that Clinton enslaved us, that Obama is elitist. You know, the typical stupid bullshit.
"We have a problem, we need to do something. We're doing something, so it must be the right thing. Hey, I'm a scientist."
Shorter Bag: Omitting crucial facts in a debate (and hating science) will allow any topic to become vague enough to be summarized as merely "something". And assuming the superiority of doing nothing is always better than debating said superiority. Because, you know, assumptions always beat facts. In idiot-land.
I sure hope Bag's fired all his scientists. Everyone knows that they fuck up any decent project.
This is a guy who would have pushed all the white coats out of the way at the Manhattan Project and rubbed all the uranium on his calcified 'nads.
Science is bad because scientific knowledge is elitist and therefore antithetical to democracy! North Korea has the best scientists!
Iran is a powerhouse of scientific knowledge!
So is Saudi Arabia!
Science is BAD! Only democracy-hating jerks use arguments grounded in scientific fact and understanding! Creationism will free our minds and our markets!
I knew a scientist. A scientist was friend of mine. You sir, are no scientist.
I knew a politician. A politician was a friend of mine. You're no politician.
You're also no comedian. A comedian was a friend of mine.
Who invented the technology you profit from? Who monetized or engineered it? What role did you really play in your company's creation and operations? You sound like the typical gadfly or theft of intellectual property.
If you're not a fraud, go ahead and let us know what your hand was or is in any technology you work with. You can refuse and respond like a fraud, but then I only have greater standing to denounce you in even harsher terms than those you use to pussy-foot around denouncing me.
Which scientist's ideas did you steal and/or refuse to credit, Bag?
You're sounding more and more like a fraud every day.
The etymology of the word "entrepreneur" is actually a 19th century French word for" manager or promoter of a theatrical production."
Bag gives more and more reasons every day to ground our understanding of what he does in the original, French meaning.
>>Good luck, then. They're at their zenith of conservative composition.
John Jay called. He wants a word on your comprehension of history.
>>Somewhere in Somalia, an anxious doctor is ready to see you.
Canard #46: Without government, America is Somalia. Even though, when America really was without government, it wasn't Somalia.
>>I did and I am certain of the former.
You're certain of everything, Ritmo. You have to be. To allow for the possibility of being wrong is to undermine your entire philosophy.
>>If only health care were not complex. Maybe more like Tic tac toe.
It only some weren't possessed of such Hubris to feel that complexity can be handled by writing literal pounds of regulation.
>>Disagreement is fine. Facts are better.
Your problem is that you think facts matter so much, you can't see any that challenge your worldview.
>>most conservatives, (including, I'm now sorry to say, you) seem to want.
What on earth about me strikes you as conservative?
Oh, right, I disagree with you, and everyone who disagrees with you is conservative.
And the literal (French) meaning is "take between".
Literally, that fucker is a TAKER, in Paul Ryan terms. Once you translate his professional title from the original French.
Ritmo, I have numerous patents, and I personally invented products that are copied around the world. I've employed over 1,200 men and women by inventing products and technologies with no degree, no sheet of paper hanging on my wall, no slap on the back by professors that never had a job or created anything saleable, no nobel prize. Hell, I'm practically an idiot. That's why I'm richer than you ever will be, and my dick is bigger too. I didn't learn how to use that in a class either.
>>Good luck, then. They're at their zenith of conservative composition.
John Jay called. He wants a word on your comprehension of history.
Oh, so sorry! I meant in modern, post-industrial times. Not when people had little access to widespread information and regularly died of dysentery. You know, the "good old days".
>>Somewhere in Somalia, an anxious doctor is ready to see you.
Canard #46: Without government, America is Somalia. Even though, when America really was without government, it wasn't Somalia.
Again with the superimposition of 18th century conditions on 21st century realities.
>>I did and I am certain of the former.
You're certain of everything, Ritmo. You have to be. To allow for the possibility of being wrong is to undermine your entire philosophy.
And your philosophy is one where self-certainties are no less assumed, just without the advantage of facts. So how the hell is that any better? It's worse.
>>If only health care were not complex. Maybe more like Tic tac toe.
It only some weren't possessed of such Hubris to feel that complexity can be handled by writing literal pounds of regulation.
But no less hubristic to either write off someone's problems or pretend (lie) about how you're going to solve them by doing either nothing or the laziest thing you could think of doing. While accumulating more and more political influence (and power and money) for doing so.
>>Disagreement is fine. Facts are better.
Your problem is that you think facts matter so much, you can't see any that challenge your worldview.
You can be certain that showing up empty-handed of any facts with which to challenge my worldview will get you nowhere. And luckily, more and more Americans feel the same way. Emptiness is not a virtue. Facts are something. You don't defeat bad facts with no facts, you use better facts. Otherwise you are asking me to respect the supposed superiority of an alternative worldview that is, quite literally, completely empty of the very things that people use to construct any sane worldview. We are not amoebas.
>>most conservatives, (including, I'm now sorry to say, you) seem to want.
What on earth about me strikes you as conservative?
Oh, right, I disagree with you, and everyone who disagrees with you is conservative.
You think facts don't matter and that complex solutions are inherently wrong. That seems to fit the bill.
Creativity is important but only an asshole proposes economic solutions for a first-world country by saying that science is over-rated. And you're also an asshole (and a taker) but luckily it sounds like you are too condescending and unhinged (when finally stripped away of your false mask of being a fun, nice guy) to maintain any sort of a decent personal relationship, let alone one that involves the raising of children. So I'm happy to deduce that Darwin (another scientist) also gets to pronounce you a failure, your smugness notwithstanding.
Also, I sure hope that no scientific trials were conducted on any of your cancer treatments. If they were, then you should kill yourself right now - just to be consistent. But as a narcissist you're not really alive anyway. At least, not in any meaningful, psychologically viable way.
That's rich, a defender of Obama and Obamacare calling someone a fraud. In 21st century English that means someone who sells one thing and delivers another, or nothing.
bagoh20 said...
A new Gallup poll finds that 78% of the uninsured do not plan on getting insured through the exchanges.
That's the gulch in the system Aridog and I were discussing.
>>Well, first of all on the basis that feelings are not facts. That's incredibly important.
You have presented no facts regarding what you call an ideological electrical barrier.
>>Secondly (as if more was needed), on the basis that few on the right feel that Medicare/Medicaid weren't ideological challenges and that few of anyone else feel that they aren't large pieces of regulation.<<
Oh, I disagree with that. What happens in every degenerating socialist country going back to before they knew what the word "socialism" meant, is that the conservative groups go from fighting the propriety of the government's involvement in such matters to arguing that they can manage such matters better.
As the statists progressively (heh) destroy society and divide it up into manipulable pieces, those who advise against are labeled as you have done here: Uncaring, selfish, evil.
You can't allow the possibility that anyone who rejects the role of the state in your cause celebré cares about the outcome.
This is very convenient for you because it gives you moral superiority with little more effort than being self-righteous on the Internet.
And, actually, I don't mean you personally because I believe you have put some personal effort into charity work, right?
Third, because health care is complex enough to be treated more complexly, it's a bad argument to keep saying that the only way to simplify and improve things is to let all the complications eat their way through the many market failures they'd been causing.
As you noted, the market was hardly unregulated. There were many individual crises before. Now, thanks to regulation, we have existential crises threatening to destroy us.
Freedom isn't about "simple", by the way.
It's called "compromise" - something that people looking to always prevent the future from coming might be well to heed.
No, Ritmo. All these programs were lies. They were exactly the disasters that the conservatives of their times predicted, and they led to the outcomes that the progressives wanted.
Social Security was sold as an account. That lasted about a year. Some people are still denying that Medicare is socialized medicine, even as others point out that it merely need be expanded to become a single-payer plan.
And, of course, Obamacare. Just a series of lies, one after the other.
I wouldn't fetishize compromise. We've already gone Godwin, and I think we know how the Jewish leaders' compromises with Hitler worked out for them.
Doubtlessly you then also made a point to blog about the many problems that did exist then and were successfully addressed.
Nope. See, you're still not getting it, and I guess you never will:
I do not care if Obamacare actually makes things better for everyone in the whole wide world. It won't, of course. It is well on the way for making things much, much worse. But even if it did, I would be against it.
Yes, problems occur when people have freedom. There can be no doubt of it. People say bad things, and they shoot people, and they quarter their troops in other peoples' houses--wait, I guess that doesn't really apply to individuals, but you get my point.
Freedom is awful. Much like democracy. Bad things happen when people are free.
But I'm only complicit in those bad things that I do, not in things that the government forces me into.
You should appreciate that, if you objected to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You shouldn't be forced into supporting that which your conscience disapproves.
I'm a lucky man to take some psychological comfort from the other definitions of "rich".
I meant "rich" as in "having great variety".
But wilder, yes. I'd love to see who wants "wilder" health care in America. Maybe a third-world immigrant.
Or maybe some poor parent whose child has been mutilated because of "medical-legal" necessity.
Just sayin'.
No, you're no fraud - assuming your 10:48 comment (minus the gratuitous, desperate insults) is finally the unvarnished truth. But you do obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder and a problem feeling proud enough of what you've done well to not resent what others do just as well. In your book, Jonas Salk was a prick so everyone should just get polio anyway. This is the type of garbled worldview your blinkered thinking results in. That's fine for you but stop shitting on everyone else who can make more successes more predictable than you ever could. In your own words, you're practically just a lucky fool. Hating harder-working and more directed and focused successes only makes you sound like the resentful shit that, underneath everything else, you must really be. So kudos on your inventions and business, but you come across as a failure of a human being. Not that I'm worried you'd mind.
Ritmo, are you still wearing that scientist disguise from Halloween. Take that off now. You can wear it again next year. Don't forget that time you wore the Spiderman suit and jumped off the roof, and broke your cooter bone.
No, you're no fraud - assuming your 10:48 comment (minus the gratuitous, desperate insults) is finally the unvarnished truth. But you do obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder and a problem feeling proud enough of what you've done well to not resent what others do just as well. In your book, Jonas Salk was a prick so everyone should just get polio anyway. This is the type of garbled worldview your blinkered thinking results in. That's fine for you but stop shitting on everyone else who can make their successes more predictable than you ever could yours. In your own words, you're practically just a lucky fool. Hating harder-working and more directed and focused successes only makes you sound like the resentful shit that, underneath everything else, you must really be. So kudos on your inventions and business, but you come across as a failure of a human being. Not that I'm worried you'd mind.
I do not care if Obamacare actually makes things better for everyone in the whole wide world.
Conversation is over.
You do not care about others, so there is no reason for me to care about you. Go argue these warmed-over cant-filled talking points (done millions of times over the last ten years of the glibertarians' most recent, losing political stand) with someone who believes a "good faith" discussion is possible with someone too self-centered to care about another few human souls, let alone the outcome of a few of his own poorly argued ideas.
" but you come across as a failure of a human being. "
Coming from someone who thinks that it's conservatives that are the ones who are condescending toward the populace, I'll assume that makes me a hell of a great guy. Thanks dude. You're very kind.
I notice that about you. You are very giving. You are willing to sacrifice every shred of self respect to defend this President. That's so charitable. I bet you're the kind of guy who would buy a homeless man a 5 star meal. You are my role model.
Although I do think it's worth addressing one last (hopefully) little piece of cant:
This is very convenient for you because it gives you moral superiority...
I keep hearing these bits about moral superiority. Let me never doubt your claim to moral inferiority, a condition that not giving a damn about others surely entitles you to.
Now the entrepreneur (French, "taker from between" - oh yeah, and self-proclaimed, great inventor) is just starting to sound insane.
You guys have proven a lot tonight. And I mean "a lot" in the sense of just how much you're incapable of. I'm about done. Enjoy the empty political skirmishes. I'm sure there's no shortage of nothings to find important in a war as big and empty as the war against facts, science and responsibility to one's fellow man.
Now your own syntax is becoming garbled. Please rephrase, if you want to discuss.
There was nothing garbled about it. I ain't dumbin' it down for you. Since you're not going to even consider what I say, I can at least take pleasure in interesting sentence construction.
I've worked on applications that successfully made it through FDA, if you're interested in an opinion borne of actual experience with this stuff.
Really? So you got some through that means all is well?
This here is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Lots of people would love to take medicine that the FDA is sitting on but because big gov't knows best, they'll just die.
Oh, unless they're big donors. Yeah, these were Democrats but I'm sure Republicans do it, too. That's how this all works. Some are more equal than others.
Whew boy. Holy repetition. We're going back to this? It must be a sore point.
I haven't talked politics with you in forever, dude.
As I said, if you really want to repeat Medicare/Medicaid, do it openly, and not clandestinely.
Heh. You mean like the way every piece of socialism that gets through the legislature is clandestinely passed? Like Income Tax? (1/2% on the richest Americans!) That's just precious.
You want single-payer or Medicare or Social Security or any of that? Pass an amendment to the Constitution. That's what you had to do to get the income tax passed.
But, of course, if you didn't bend the rules so you could have continuously smaller margins, you'd have no "progress" at all.
That way, Republicans don't come across like the Obama broken promise of keeping care, magnified exponentially.
Why should I care what Republicans come across like?
Of course, where would an American conservative's
Again, I'm not sure what you think is conservative about me, other than disagreeing with you.
rhetoric and talking points be if he couldn't pretend to appropriate every linguistic device invented by famous anti-fascist British socialist-liberal, George Orwell! Perhaps there are other things you could learn from the man you love to quote, like what he actually believed in, for one.
1) Everyone knows Orwell was a socialist.
2) I have no idea what you think I said was a quote by him.
3) This is not a rebuttal. It's an appeal to authority.
Problem solved for those of us happy with a government of, by and for the people. Not so much with those struggling to incorporate populism into their own damn party.
I don't even know what you're talking about. I do think it's fascinating that you find a divide between a "government of, by and for the people" and "populism".
Not worthy of dignifying with a response.
Cop out.
Who's the one saying people can't figure out healthcare, and they have to have better, smarter people protecting them?
Suffice it to say it sounds like a massive amount of projection, given how much distrust of others and condescension of the population as a whole conservatism requires.
Again: Not a conservative. But you clearly don't understand conservatism at all.
What's your purpose here, Ritmo? What are you trying to achieve? If you sincerely wish to change minds, you need to understand the minds you wish to change.
I wish this night would go better for you.
I confess I don't have a taste for this sort of juvenile dick wagging you guys do, though I've certainly done it in the past.
My night has been completely unimpacted by this, however, if that is your implication.
Feel free not to respond to any of that, Ritmo.
I won't be reading your responses, just as you were not reading mine.
I actually was reading them. But you're a slow reader. I'm up to the point where you proclaimed your glee-filled freedom of caring about the fate of the world, and considered that just about the most juvenile sentiment possible on this thread (and probably one that Bag [and more than a few others here] shares). So it makes the political and policy debate much clearer - you hate others, don't care about their fate (which could become yours or someone you care about [not that I'd want a nihilist caring about me]), so policy debates on how the population achieves the best and most comprehensive and highest quality coverage are moot. You've already declared your unbothered sociopathic interest in seeing the world burn. But we won't let it happen, and the tides are turning for us. So instead you must live an existence that is shamefully shrunken from the view of the much greater numbers who don't share that disregard. Enjoy.
Ritmo, I've come to the realization that the time for talk is over with these people. There can never be a meeting of the minds, because most of them have lost theirs in some sort of mass insanity. We however can and will go on to make the US one that sane people can live in and thrive. That of course means that these people should continue on their destructive path, we take advantage and win the Presidency, House and Senate, install liberal Judges and SC Justices. Then those people can simply continue to fight among themselves and one day hopefully implode.
Hahahaha! That is so damned awesome! I feel the love, the tolerance, the open mind wraps me up like a warm blanket, and gently lulls me to sleep.
Hush-a-by baby
On the tree top,
When the wind blows
The cradle will rock.
When the bough breaks,
The cradle will fall,
And down will fall baby
Cradle and all.
Unfortunately, I think you're right. Politics is (or has become) a zero-sum game for them. They don't understand that a balance could exist between learning from the past and embracing a willingness to address current problems; it's all scorched earth. But they wouldn't realize that that's not good enough for us - like most healthy people we'd like something productive to do, and thanks to their laziness and poor stewardship of state and nation, there's a lot to do. Inviting them into a debate and policy discussion when all that matters to them is political power is pointless.
As it is pointless to assume that someone who hates the idea of a better life or better opportunities or better infrastructure or the amelioration of a previously dysfunctionally mis-regulated market has any interest that a decent human could share. I have a large extended family; proclaiming a lack of caring for them would be anathema. You don't do that to the rest of your country either, if you care about it.
All this time they used stalling tactics, convincing us that they had sincere reservations about preserving incentives, personal responsibility, etc. In the end, they're a bunch of selfish moochers in their own right, thinking that making the necessarily collective decisions of a group (as any nation is) is not an American thing to do. So let the country languish they will, on the same altar of greed that all immorality is based on. If greed is the only thing they would defend, what's to stop someone from violating others in any way possible? The boundaries that free us from being violated at will form when one realizes that a selfish need isn't the only worthy consideration in a society - a realization that these people fail at miserably.
They must have had a lot of lazy moochers in their families to be wary of. However, this was not my experience and I don't expect it of my country. Nor would I inflict that on my country. Not so for these abominations of patriotism. Their love of empire and hatred of country and fellow man disqualifies them from sharing in deciding its fate, and I'm happy to see that judgment ratified again and again in the coming and recent years.
That's it. Now how about a hug?
Another round on me, bartender!
Inga said I've come to the realization that the time for talk is over with these people
Good idea. Please stop talking. Since we've long ago stopped listening to you, it should work out well for everyone.
No, it's actually me saying that that if all he cares about is having a shallow airhead to put his penis into (flesh and blood construction optional), then he need not mutter mindless nursery rhymes and mock any real human sentiment.
So he's not right. But his parents abandoned him so he has to find a way to justify destroying a meaningful connection somehow.
One story I've never blogged (especially with photos) is a debauched party I threw one Halloween in Zurich, Switzerland. It was a costume party of course and the Swiss and Germans can party down like Mardi Gras given short notice.
There were two memorable highlights of that evening that I can remember. The first was a large pink inflatable love doll someone brought along from Holland. I tried inflating it with helium (which I had access to in a chemistry lab), hoping to have a large tethered dirigible as a conversation piece. The experiment failed. She was too heavy and wound up with cucumber inserted in her mouth.
The second was the attendance of a future captain of German industry. He was a grad student at the ETH at the time. He told years later that he hopes I never release photos of his costume.
Have another hit of helium and lighten up, folks.
There are times for levity. A lot of life should be about levity. But if you can't take policies determining how we live or die seriously, then, well…
Anyway, the story's a funny one. We used to inflate things but no dolls around. (Hmmm ;-) Usually rubber gloves, which a good block of CO2 could inflate to about the size of a desk, if you did it right. Or we would just fill them with water and drop them out the window, four stories up. But your story was more creative and wild… even to the point of reminding me of early days Beastie Boys touring props.
Post a Comment