A Little Bit of History Repeating...
Are you serious chocolate? So the many i protest with are bunch of white racist wing nuts. Including me. Talk about some :bs ....
Communism is the devil.
I can't figure out if you're inferring that people who oppose more nationalized health care are racists, or if you're equating nationalized health care with desegregation; or both. Either way, your cleverness is stifling.
I think this is going to be my last post on this website. This kind of warped logic is disturbing and I'm just tired of seeing it; it's been all too common lately and it's boring. You're boring. Although I suppose it's my fault for venturing in here after seeing so much utter nonsense in the past. So, I'm going to exercise my right to get the hell outta here. Consider this camel's back to be finally broken. Have a good one.
Hell, there was NO CAPTION to the picture, and not a word of text in the original post. Where you are imputing "warped logic" is clearly a faulty assumption on your own part.
(Although: Calling "race mixing" communism in one instance and then, 40-some-odd years later, protesters of the same political stripe using the same vocabulary to fight against health care reform is telling. Of what is another thread, and the demise of another weak-backed camel.)
For the rest:
No; tea party protesters are not automatic racists. Not the point. No; all protesters and protests are not the same.
The point is that damn-near EVERY BIT of meaningful change has come about over and through such protestation as we're seeing now from Conservatives. Sure, definitionally there is to be expected some resistance to PROGRESS...hence the term conservative. I get that. But...
Slavery. The New Deal. Voting equality. Repeal of the poll tax. Civil rights. Integrated schools. Women's rights.
And now: Gay marriage. Health care.
It seems as though any time we're talking about domestic change that stands to actually better lives and improve the communities nearest to us, Conservatives protest loud and hard...yet not one of those sign-holding tea partiers bats an eyelash when another appropriations request comes down for $50BN (or more) for rebuilding Iraq -- a country whose new US-sponsored constitution spells out the terms of guaranteed healthcare for all Iraqis (Art. 31).
Interpret the picture as you choose...or dismiss it entirely. I promise: You won't break my heart if you ignore the thread, no need to threaten to leave the forum foreversies or jump from that ledge ("I'll do it this time! Honest!").
The picture just made me wonder how many modern-day Republican see the stark difference in what the two parties protest. In 2003, Liberals protested spending tax payer dollars to make war and kill others in a unilateral war since proven to be based on false pretenses. Now, the current version of the most "conservative" Republicans are protesting national healthcare that would, at worst, cost a drop in the bucket of taxpayer money as compared to Oceania's war in Eurasia to help improve a catastrophically broken health care system. Want to protest the government's reckless spending of taxpayer dollars? Sounds great. Problem is, those "Rallies for America" back then (Glenn Beck again!) were promoting the very wars that have siphoned off the funds so desperately needed to fix the growing problems here in the US. Where have the real conservatives gone?
So there's that picture. It was unsettling to me from the moment I saw it. Very unsettling. It was unsettling to see the fervor and intensity of protesters who are fighting against the creation of a system that can set the world standard for health care if done correctly. This should be a true bipartisan effort; this is NOT the issue to hope President Obama or the Dems screw up on. Jason pegged it right on: It's stirring up the same nationalistic fears from a bag of tricks that ought not work any longer. It's fearmongering, plain and simple. It's putting a forked tail and sickle on what seems to be a genuine chance at reform.
In my book, it's worthy of that same "bs" emoticon to see the "Obama is a socialist!" signs held high and proud by protesters who have never, not once set foot outside the "'merica" they just know to be the greatest and best at all things, beyond discussion. Set aside for a moment just how confusing it is just how the President can be a nazi, an Islamofacist sympathizer, a communist, an anti-christ, and a closet atheist--all at once. I've been sick in Germany--I lived there. I've used a German emergency room. It was UN-FREAKING-BELIEVABLE how smooth and inexpensive it was. I've had tonsillitis in Costa Rica. Emergency room. Same experience. Yes, upfront taxes are higher. You know what? We are already paying a ridiculous amount for health care (not to mention all the sales, use, excise, and other taxes). Factor in what you're paying now, and my guess is a substantial net GAIN with an expanded national health care. Where exactly does it say that we have to have so comparatively crappy a health care system in order to preserve that myopic vision of "'merica"?
Because you know what: We can likely all agree that what we have now--Nixon's implementation of plan designed ONLY to increase provider profits--ain't workin' anymore, if it ever did. Instead of conservative obstructionism and protests, why not JOIN THE PROCESS and craft a piece of legislation that builds upon the working systems already out there, and adds that 'merican touch. Hell, the right should be saying, "We need this bill...but it has to be fiscally responsible." Set realistic targets, limits, and publicly shame Congresscritters from either side that try to slip garbage in the bill. You know...actually being conservative on an issue that could benefit from informed constituents demanding actual fiscal restraint. I'd love to see that.
Unfortunately, that's not what I have been seeing. Maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe I'm just not seeing the whole picture. Maybe I'm getting too caught up with the communism garbage and the scores of prejudicial message hijacking with all the "Send him back to Africa!" and the "Lyin' Kenyan" posters, and I'm failing to see the more subtle, politically savvy messages that are coming from the right. Maybe obi had a "clever" point of his own that, but for my boring posting a single picture, we would have all benefited to hear. Maybe there is no historical connection in the conservative protests I mentioned. Maybe the Red demon-of-choice choice for each group of protesters is coincidental. Maybe these events are separate, distinct, and absolutely removed from each other instance such that any comparison necessarily requires the application of "warped logic".
I'm skeptical, but who knows.
What I do know is that the viewpoint from outside the teaparty is one that makes the loudest of the fringe, the hagiographical Glenn Beck crowd, seem like they are espousing the viewpoints of the majority of the right. That, my friends, could only lead to further defection and conservative party fragmentation.
(Pardon these tears...I just love this forum...so...much. -Sniff-)
And that's why that picture caught my eye.
/"warped logic and cleverness" of a fiscal conservative and social realist
Regardless, solid post, WC.
Harry Reid's History Lesson
Harry Reid compares the fight for health-care reform to the emancipation and women's suffrage movements.
By JOHN FUND
Majority Leader Harry Reid tarred opponents of his health care bill yesterday as the equivalent of those who opposed equal rights for women and civil rights for blacks.
In a remarkable statement on the Senate floor, Mr. Reid lambasted Republicans for wanting to "slow down" on health care. "You think you've heard these same excuses before? You're right," he said. "In this country there were those who dug in their heels and said, 'Slow down, it's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough' -- about slavery. When women wanted to vote, [they said] 'Slow down, there will be a better day to do that -- the day isn't quite right. . . .'"
He wrapped up his remarks as follows: "When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."
Senator Reid's comments were quickly condemned. "Hyperbole. It is over the top. It reminds me of earlier people talking about Nazis," said Juan Williams of NPR and Fox News, author of "Eyes on the Prize," a definitive history of the civil rights movement.
Historians also faulted Mr. Reid's curious reference to the Senate civil rights debates of the 1960s. After all, it was Southern Democrats who mounted an 83-day filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. The final vote to cut off debate saw 29 Senators in opposition, 80% of them Democrats. Among those voting to block the civil rights bill was West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who personally filibustered the bill for 14 hours. The next year he also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Byrd still sits in the Senate, and indeed preceded Mr. Reid as his party's majority leader until he stepped down from that role in 1989.
The final reason Mr. Reid's comments were so inapt and offensive is that the battles for women's suffrage and civil rights he referred to were about expanding freedom. That's not what the 2,074-page health care bill being debated in the Senate today does, with its 118 new regulatory boards and commissions. Mr. Reid may reach his needed 60 votes to pass his bill this month, but he is pursuing it using the most tawdry and deplorable of tactics.
Comparing race rights w/ health care is ludicrous. In one case people are protesting about what someone else does with their own lives; in the other, people are protesting about an action that literally can mean the difference between life and death for themselves. I believe people are in a better position to determine what's best for themselves both in whom they marry and choosing their healthcare. If this healthcare legislation was serious about controlling costs and making healthcare more affordable there would be tort reform included and the repeal of the restriction banning sale of health insurance across state lines. These 2 actions alone would take care of most of the problem. However, this has very little to do with improving the overall level of healthcare in our country. It is about the increase in power to politicians that goes along with another massive intrusion of Big Brother in our lives. In fact, I would equate the politicians (read Democrats) to the unenlightens who believed that Big Brother should have a say in "Race Mixing".
I haven't posted here in a while, but when I did I usually appreciated your willingness to spend time talking through issues at length, WCJ.
That said, I think this original post was always likely to backfire. Even without caption or comment the two images offer themselves for comparison. The idea of repetition present in the framing thread title ("A Little Bit of History Repeating...") strengthens the invitation to make this kind of comparison. And the obvious comparison is, unfortunately, that the use of the same anti-communist scare-mongering creates equivalence between both campaigns pictured. I would give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant to suggest intellectual(ly bankrupt) rather than moral(ly bankrupt) equivalence, but I can see why others might not, and would accuse your post of, metaphorically, holding up a "Healthcare Protesting is Racism" placard.
A picture can sometimes say as much as a thousand words, but often it can simply set loose a thousand monkeys into a roomful of typewriters.
Point noted, and it's good to see you around here again. Happy 2010!
You're right WCJ, people shouldn't use comparisons to communism to protest against this healthcare bill. Instead they should call out Obama, who promised "change", but has approved "95%" of this bill, which is made up of Senator's and Representative's buying each other out (e.g. Nebraska medicare) and fighting over getting their BS loaded onto it. Why aren't you outraged at that? Are you not pissed that Nebraska gets a free ride on medicare simply because they were the last to vote for the bill? I'd think if you found public healthcare to be so important, you'd want that BS to be as far away as possible from it.
Secondly, the govt has no right telling a health insurance company who they have to cover (unless we're talking racial discrimination). They have no right deciding how much they can and cannot charge said person for coverage, or that they have to charge the same amount across the board. The govt has no right requiring someone to have mandatory health insurance (which is different than mandatory car insurance). That's like requiring them to have life insurance.
Sure, I have tons of objections to the current state of health care reform. Most of what you said is the bipartisan product of our government-for-sale form of lobbyism that we have in place. While you are asking why I'm not pointing my finger at the Chief Executive of this country, I could in turn, ask why you have not read Art. II of the constitution? It's not the President's ROLE to make the laws. Period. Bush may have worn a hybrid hat and dallied where the document disallowed, but President Obama was a Constitutional Law professor. I think he understands the separation of the branches more clearly than any of us do.
All that said, we CANNOT continue to be the only Western democracy that does not provide health care to its citizens.
The public option--before it was scuttled and gutted--was proposed as a way of avoiding the very situation that you describe, in which a private firm is giving government instruction on how to handle its business operations. We can both agree that ham-handed government interference is a huge disaster. It historically has been a fiasco for the same reason repeated throughout our nation's history: A good idea sours because the gubmint doesn't know when to back off. That the government is not the best steward of its citizen's health care hardly a point of contention. Where I differ is that I'm not a fan of obstructionism masquerading as ideas. The right (and Lieberman) seem to believe that blocking any and all potential solutions will benefit the republicans in 2012. Great....but what about US citizens between now and the next election? It's not all politics for us real folks.
What we have now not only doesn't work: It is proximately causing the needless death of American men, women and children. We need to fix the broken system, and soon. We need to put politics aside and come to the table willing to look at the problem in a realistic and pragmatic manner.
I think I agree with the main thrust of your assertion, that private firms ought to be able to run their business according to their own wishes, with the following caveat: Let the government COMPETE with the private firms. That's what the "public option" was intended to provide. A public option--or public buy-in, government option, whatever you call it would allow the government to act as an additional force in the marketplace that would serve as a countervailing force to the profit-at-all-cost MO of the current players. That's where and why I'm all in favor of a robust public option. The insurance companies have repeatedly and unflinchingly shown that they will not and cannot "police" themselves--so having an alternative means of acquiring healthcare is hardly even an arguably "bad" thing, let alone the end of 'merica that some protesters make it out to be.
I don't follow how requiring a person to take care of themselves by acquiring some form of access to healthcare, whether it is through private or public insurance, etc. is even remotely akin to forcing a person to purchase a life insurance policy. In fact, I think that's a faulty assumption through and through. Health care can be argued as an essential service, part and parcel of the constitutional "promot[ion] of the General Welfare" called for in the preamble (and then charged as the bailiwick of Congress in Art. I). Life insurance is a way of hedging your bets against the unexpected, and is more similar to auto insurance than health insurance. In fact, the government requires you to purchase auto insurance because you're driving on the roads, exposing others to risk by your operation of a vehicle. So it is in some industries that, because of the nature of the work, the purchase of life insurance by the employer for the benefit of its employees is mandated.
Beyond that, it would seem that each citizen being responsible under the law for procuring and maintaining health insurance of some form is nothing short of personal accountability...and isn't personal accountability the alleged cornerstone of the modern conservative movement*? Sure, there would be punitive attachment to going without. But as it is, those without insurance and with the means and ability to purchase it are a HUGE drain on the taxpayer resources. The changes proposed in this (awful, bloated, earmarked, and vile) legislation DO address that very issue. In fact, the cost to the taxpayer is actually projected to be LESS under the Senate plan (which is awful) than if we do nothing. Why is that? Because ignoring the issue or pretending like emergency room care IS a form of a public option ignores the nature of that cost spreading given the high cost of trauma care and emergency services versus the allocation of tax dollars to provide for non-emergency medical and health care services (e.g., prophylactic checkups). While I think that there are issues with such a mandate--just look at what happened to Romney's attempt in MA--I like the conversation, because that seems like the area in which a truly non-partisan and constituent-focused solution would arise from.
*- It's either that, or keepin' them gays from enjoying the foundation of America's traditions, Divorce.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:37 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.7.4