Congressman: 'I've got facts, you've got Glenn Beck'
Congressman: 'I've got facts, you've got Glenn Beck'
When Congressman Rick Larsen (D-WA) took his health care forum to the pitcher's mound on Wednesday at Memorial Stadium in Everett, Washington, of course he expected detractors to be lobbing hard balls.
But when a woman began literally reading a list of scary-yet-false claims about the president's health care proposals -- concluding with, "I'm unwilling to throw my health insurance away for them" (meaning the poor) -- Larsen took a deep breath.
First, he clarified that nobody will be forced to buy health care or change their current policies. Then he broke through to his real point: "Some folks will say that's not true. But, I've got facts on my side, you've got Glenn Beck on your side."
The audience erupted in cheers.
Also worth noting, one speaker toward the very end makes a very good counter-point to those who suggest that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to initiate an optional public health insurance plan.
He says: "Article 1, section 8 says that it's the duty of Congress to provide for the general welfare. That's what I see this health care bill as. Providing for the general welfare. So, for the Constitution people, there it is. Maybe you haven't read it."
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ISlyY-AzfZY&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&featur e=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ISlyY-AzfZY&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&featur e=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Meanwhile, after being targeted by American conservatives for its allegedly "Orwellian" health care system, the British are finally being dragged into America's health debate as well. In a lengthy expose' on American health care, The Independent sent a reporter into the belly of the beast: A free health care fair in Los Angeles, California, where over $2 million in health services were given away over eight days.
The poor lined up around the block. Hundreds of teeth were pulled. Blood pressure was taken. Mammograms given. Blood was tested. Children received vital immunizations. It improved the quality of life for thousands of Americans, to whom health care is oh-so scarce.
In other words, it was evil, "Orwellian"-style Socialism. (Not to say there's nothing "Orwellian" about the UK; there is.)
Most striking about the piece is a list of numbers printed at the bottom. Let these figures soak in, as sourced from the World Health Organization:
Health spending as a share of GDP
Public spending on healthcare (% of total spending on healthcare)
Health spending per head
Practising physicians (per 1,000 people)
Nurses (per 1,000 people)
Acute care hospital beds (per 1,000 people)
Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)
How do you like that? The UK spends half as much of their gross domestic product as we do, yet their life expectancy is longer, they have more doctors per 1,000 people and a lower infant mortality rate.
And their poor are not forced into wage slavery because they could not afford or were denied health insurance.
Yet, they spend less per person than we do.
Seriously, has anyone ever seen so many allegedly "free market" Republicans act like such children when their friends at the insurance companies were confronted with a little potential competition?
You'd further think that figures like these would encourage more pro-lifers to support health care for the poor. Think about it. Making medical treatment available to a woman newly pregnant and throughout her expectancy would ultimately Save More Babies while lowering the costs of bringing a child into the world.
Until Democrats begin framing their arguments in terms the frightened opposition can understand -- in their logic, on a level that even (and especially) makes sense to dumb folk -- I'm unconvinced the public option will succeed.
-- Stephen C. Webster
The Raw Story
I'm sorry, but it's still hard for me to trust "facts" purported by these congressmen. Statistics and Data can be interpreted and skewed in many ways, or outright lied about. They do not equate to facts.
In addition to that, Statistics have a context. If you only provide statistics that support one side of an issue, but ignore those that support the other side, you get a completely inaccurate picture of the truth. You may be right, but you're still dishonest. Whenever I see a list of "facts" that only support an opinion, without an honest admission to those which might not support it, I am immediately skeptical. Politicians of every kind have been doing this throughout our history.
Still, I'd trust them slightly more than Glenn Beck, just not that much more.
Facts..lol...Nut Glenn Beck may be "on" the side of the tea parties but just who is on the side of congressman Rick Larson? A. Nancy Pelosi. If that's the person you take these "facts" from Mr. Larson then by all means I guess the we are all on equal grounds.
C'mon if you're taking your information from a media touting euthanasia and racism as its talking points you're far from equal ground.
k then... How bout Olbermann, Maddow, and Mr. (I got a tingling sensation up my leg) Chris Matthews. Matthews was the first one i saw that tried to debunk these tea parties as that they were originally orchestrated by the insurance companies and repukes...
And yet the majority of insurance companies have publicly endorsed Obama's platforms.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.....
I was watching a town hall for a Republican Congressman. For some reason the insurance companies paid people to go there and say the same things as they did at the Democrat town halls. Maybe, just maybe, it's what people really think! After all, the health care bill continues to poll badly and Obama's numbers have declined with the bill.
Glen Beck is a loon and is not helping any cause. I wish i knew where to get the facts. But there is no bill yet is what I hear.
H.R.3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009:
Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress
Let me also say that I don't support the Libs one lining stuff either. I just think you make yourself sound ridiculous when you just parrot stuff that is blatantly untrue. I don't appreciate Obama having tried to rush the bill, but it is almost understandable when you hear Rush or any other Republican mouthpiece just straight lying about the contents of the bill.
1. HR3200 is over 1,000 pages long. Really? Does it really take that much wording to reform health care? No. There is no telling what is in that document, and to try and rush it through just stinks to high heaven. Some in congress have even admitted to not know exactly what the bill says on certain points.
2. The bill may not say you have to take the public option, and it might not say we are going to a single pay system...BUT...those are things that will come in time. That is the goal. Democrats have pushed for this for decades. They know they are not going to do it over night, but this will get them there fast.
3. Many from both sides can be viewed as lying, because the bill is so vague and convoluted. It will years for it to affect certain aspects of our current system.. Right now our information comes from the liberal media on one side and Fox News on the other along with talk radio, and they're just screaming back and forth pointing fingers. There is no source of information that we can depend on for un-biased reporting. None.
All of the prime time news is a joke. I will say that the above article is one of the better jobs done for promoting this reform, however the "facts" are not that black and white. People are giving their interperatations and opinions, which can easily disagreed with in either direction.
I am sorry, but there are too many simple (POSSIBLE) solutions to reform that would have very little potential drawbacks if they didn't work.
-competition across state lines
Most don't realize, that should this evolve into a single payer system, we could very well be powerless against mal-practice.
^^^ It's instances such as above, where people who (a) don't even know what a "torte" [sic] is call for its reform, and (b) know damn-near doodly squat about the Constitution (Art. 1,8,3. and the interstate commerce clause ring a bell?) clamor for free competition between states. Sure, those are "easier" options. Hell, if we're looking for that, let's just mandate that doctors must, effective immediately, put their lab coats on left arm first. No risk; no cost...ultimately, no societal benefit.
That you actually propose "torte" reform as a solution to the healthcare issues we face in this country suggests to me that the debate for meaningful reform is already taking place between the know-nothings and the loons.
Let's hope that a more educated conversation in taking place outside the media sphere.
I would love to know why tort reform would not help in the cost of health care.
So, I am guessing you are in favor of the public option? Single pay system? This overall proposal in general?
What makes you think it will be so great? We are facing a 9 trillion deficit without this proposal. Do you really think it is such a good idea that we should tack on some more?
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.7.4