[DELETED BY AUTHOR]
10 Sep
When Will Democrats Apologize to Americans for Lies and Insults?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Thursday, September 10th, 2009 at 11:57 am | 24 views
- Share:
@mata (#47): Firstly, I’m sorry. That WAS both “small” and insulting of me. It was mainly the tedious part of it. I made a couple of comments today, earlier, and I was determined — for once, to take the discussion to the bitter end, answering each and every critic. But I just got overwhelmed. I’d clicked “notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail.” In just the next 12 hours, I had 54 such “comments” for my counter-response. Each counter-response generates exponentially-growing counter-counter responses. At a certain point, I just gave up. Utterly overwhelmed. It’s the challenge of being a near-lone liberal on a conservative blog (I’m sure it’s the same way being a lone conservative on a liberal blog). At a certain point, defending one’s position (and honor) becomes an exercise in futility. I ended up pretty much blowing a full day’s work, to the disadvantage of those who count on me to show up for them. Anyway, I think that I was just venting more about my disgust at myself for getting my own priorities out of whack.
I’ll close here, but I still don’t accept the proposition that Obama was “lying” about the coverage of “illegal” issue. I don’t even accept the fact that he was “pandering.” He is in the middle of trying to do something of historic importance, against a barrage of withering criticism which makes my own little share of tribulation on Flopping Aces look like a single bone in a fillet-of-fish by comparison. He saw what was made out of that ridiculous “death panel” thing and he was doing his best to touch all bases and anticipate all the objections.
And, once again, as much as everyone on this board (and politicians like Boehner) want to claim that the President is defending the House bill, he clearly wasn’t. You can’t use the House bill to attack the President’s own final health care bill; you can only attack what the President says that he wants in his own health care bill, at the end of the day, which is for it not to cover “illegals,” as an identifiable cohort of beneficiaries. Of course, it can’t possibly be so surgically precise that some “illegals” do not get covered in some way. One could make the same criticism regarding the bill not paying for abortions with federal dollars. There is going to be a little bit of mixing. But the same thing could be said about Bush’s funding of stem cell research. It’s virtually impossible to assure that absolutely no federal dollars ever have gone into unapproved stem cell research at Universities who receive federal dollars for a variety of purposes. When Bush and Congress said that no federal dollars would support unapproved stem cell research, they weren’t lying to anyone; they were only saying that use of any federal dollars to support unapproved stem cell research was prohibited. They couldn’t guarantee that there would not be a mixing of federal dollars at some level, on some occasions.
Obama’s strategy at the beginning was a very good and wise one. He’s continuing to follow this strategy. He’s letting the House bill and the Senate bills all be “stalking horses” to attract both support and criticism. Only after all the commotion has played out and the dust has settled will he get down to the final details, during the House/Senate reconciliation process. What he did in his speech to the joint session of Congress was to outline the provisions which he wanted to see in the final bill he signed — among these would be a provision for no Federal dollars from this bill to support care of “illegals,” which I’m sure he’s doing for pragmatic reasons — meaning that he knows he has to take this position to get a bill passed, not that he’d want this provision, were it not required for passage.
But you just can’t go calling him a liar — much less to his face in the Chamber of the House of Representatives during a formal address to Congress and the nation — based on provisions of a House bill which is not the President’s own bill and which is certainly not going to be the final bill which the President will ultimately sign. Well, you actually can call him a liar — it was just done. But it was very bad manners and it was a sad chapter in the continued deterioration of once civil discourse over the important issues of the day.
I’m going to go on sabbatical again (meaning actually get back to my day job), but I’d like to offer a few, I think relevant, thoughts.
I look around the world, at the people I’ve known, and I see much more good than bad. I think that most people do many things out of self-interest; human evolution favored the survival of people who were good at that. But human evolution also favored the survival of people who treated other people with decent fairness and even generosity.
I am very touched by my experiences in my trips to Japan, which is a virtually areligious society. Most people have no religion at all and Buddhism, the dominant religion of those who are religious, is more of a philosophy than a religion, in the sense that you and I think of it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism8.htm
What Buddhism does is to “channel” the basic human instinct for goodness into a more or less organized set of life’s practices. Buddhism neither believes nor disbelieves in a deity, but the concept of a deity is not a central feature. For Japanese who don’t consider themselves Buddhists, there is the over-arching concept of honor. And the equally-powerful concept of shame.
But I’ve been struck by the basic goodness and kindness of people I’ve met, where ever I’ve traveled. Hotel and restaurant workers, taxi drivers, customs agents, strangers on the street. From Turkey to Thailand to South Korea to Japan and to Europe. And even in the USA. Society works, all over the world, not because of religion and not because of government regulation, but because of the basic goodness of most people. Here in California, we live among the “illegals,” but these are overwhelmingly good people.
I try to give everyone the benefit of doubt, on a personal level, from my auto mechanic to my political opponents on Flopping Aces to my own political soul mates, and I’ve been constantly rewarded, in terms of personal happiness. I’m alert to treachery and danger; both obviously exist, but the world I inhabit and visit is no jungle.
I am saddened by efforts to make everything in life a case of us versus them. I don’t know who “them” are. I do know who “us” are. “Us” are practically everyone.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Fox’s Judge Napolitano, thoughts on illegal immigrant coverage if a public health-care system is instituted:
“… No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“I could be totally off base. One of my other thoughts on the subject is that the Supreme Court might rule the health care bill is unconstitutional if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right (strict scrutiny doctrine). If a person were denied public health-care, an illegal immigrant, and sued for coverage would the SCOTUS rule in the favor of the immigrant, or hold that the federal governments health care plan was unconstitutional in discriminating against a person based on their national origin.”
Under current laws if illegals go to an emergency room, they get treated. As a result, they go there for even the most minor of medical problems, and as a result it takes forever to get treated in emergency rooms.
I think Larry has a point with using hefty fines on businesses and private individuals who hire illegals, but use it to pay-down the incurred costs for the problems and costs by these immigrants who flaunt our laws. Maybe if we treat illegal immigration like Mexico does our health-care costs will go done. As will the costs of those in our jail and prison system, the costs associated with a revolving door deportation/recrossing policy. California would suddenly be solvent. As more Americans would have to be hired at fair wages to fill the jobs the illegals were employed in unemployment would drop and payroll taxes from said jobs would go back into the system. I think we should look at fixing the current health-care system first and foremost which is what the American people really want. They did NOT ask for another big government bureaucracy.
I’ll be a little blunt here on this because it needs to be understood in blunt terms.
Unless the legislation contains specific language prohibiting Federal Funding for treatment of Illegals and prohibits funding for abortion, those actions will be funded. Unless the legislation contains specific language limiting Tort Claims it will not get the votes to pass. Unless Max Baucus
drops his provisions for Unionizing the Health Care Industry it should not pass.
The Congress Bill is a trojan horse. The Senate Bill will be worse and the final version will be cost prohibitive and punitive to the Nation, Employers and the Consumer. The MEDICARE cuts will be a rationing tool as there are not enough Doctors, Nurses or quality facilities to take on additional patient load.
There is no free lunch.
@Ditto:
Interesting thoughts on the equal protection clause.
That’s the 800 lb gorilla in the room that everyone is dancing around.
The Courts have already established that excluding illegals from coverage is not constitutional. The case law already has roots.
Essentially Congress can word the bill however they want but when it ends up a the door of the courthouse all bets are off.
Our “Lecturer-in-Chief” knows that.
The whole debate over Obama’s remarks on healthcare reform and illegals and Joe Wilson’s remarks is moot. Obama said:
Catch that? The reforms he’s proposing. He doesn’t have a bill. He doesn’t have a bill nor a written proposal. Therefore, his whole statement is a lie. Or at the very least, a complete misrepresentation of the truth. It’s almost as if the man believes there is no bill out there, only his magic proposals.
@ Larry
That was very nicely written Larry, and I mean that in all sincerity. My wife is Mexican. She’s here legally and always has been. She is now a naturalized citizen, a process that took her 10 year. She wanted to do it on her own, without using the fact that she was married to an American. I adore my Mexican in laws and have a lot of Mexican friends, of which I’m sure some are here illegally. It’s not something I ask before shaking hands, so I don’t really know for sure. I share Mata’s feelings on immigration and the work program almost to a T. I think a lot of my friends on the right are so caught up in the “illegal” part of the immigration process, that they lose site of the real problem. But, that’s a different post.
Pat Buchanan wrote something today I think everyone in America should read. It’s not a right wing rant, just a look at what’s going on. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109478
~snip~
and another
and last snip
You may have never called Bush a liar, but many on the left did. Now they call us racist if we don’t kiss the very ground Obama walks on. I have a very real fear that the country I grew up in will not be the same country in the next 4 years. People on both sides have reached a breaking point. And the “great uniter” has turned out to be a great big wedge.
I for one have a problem with illegal immigrants. In the early ’70s, my husband walked out and left me with 3 kids to support. I was working full-time making $80.00/week (before taxes). I applied for a job picking strawberries on week-ends to help make ends meet. I was told I would ask for too much money, so they couldn’t hire me. I explained I would work for minimum wage, and was laughed at and told “we can get the job done a lot cheaper than that”. I was willing to work and pay taxes, but I found out a lot of the workers in the fields were being paid under the table. So, in my eyes, illegal immigrants took a job away from me, an American citizen. I did not want to go on welfare, but was fortunate enough to get a different part-time job. The point I am trying to make is that when I hear “illegals are doing the jobs Americans won’t” it is a BIG, FAT LIE!! Illegal immigrants are also a problem with gangs who are overrunning our ERs, and causing most trauma units to close due to loss of revenue. How long are we going to allow people from other countries to come here illegally, take our jobs (without paying taxes), using our medical, welfare, schools, etc. facilities, and not contribute. We can only keep paying so long before our pockets are empty. Where do we go when we have nothing left? I am all for immigration as long as it is legal.
Madalyn
The Congressional Research Service has indicated that, as it stands, there is nothing to prevent coverage for illegal immigrants under currently considered legislation.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim said: “Obama’s strategy at the beginning was a very good and wise one. He’s continuing to follow this strategy. “
Too funny Larry… And I hope he continues to follow his arrogant, hectoring, tone deaf strategy because obviously IT’S NOT WORKING! Surely, you have read the same polls I have.
And Obama has yet to come up with a plan! He just keeps making speeches and talking about a plan but NEVER produces one. Can you point me to the link of legislative language for Obama’s plan so we could study it?
Hope and Change has finally ran smack into REALITY and the American people don’t buy it!
@mata: Brief post-script –>
In addition to Texas, another large state instituted the precise malpractice reform being touted as a near panacea. California. Thirty years ago (shortly after I moved to the state). This capped pain and suffering awards at $250K (the same as Texas).
Here’s a very nice, concise summary of the effects:
http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/09/10/malpractice-reform/
My conclusion: definitely worth doing, but won’t do anything substantive to reduce health care costs. Benefit of doing this way overstated. Doesn’t reduce unnecessary tests. Savings not passed on to health care payers and consumers.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry #49. Your gracious apology is accepted with no judgement. Thank you.
And I might also add that I know very well you are a busy man, and I appreciate each and every moment you take to share your insights here… even when I vehemently disagree. There are points in time when you just may have to state your case, and let it go. Otherwise it’s endless and there are times we just must agree to disagree.
And that “agree to disagree” moment is going to have to come here between you and I on Obama’s pandering/lying – or as you believe, “…He is in the middle of trying to do something of historic importance, against a barrage of withering criticism…”
I might remind you that to say that smacks of Rahm’bo’s comment which I posted in a response to you on another thread about the thinly disguised quest via “steps” for single payer by both Obama and Congress:
You say Obama was focusing on “historic importance”. I say he was definitely lying and pandering. Here’s the simple facts.
Obama touts himself as a Constitutional scholar. And in that vein, he must be painfully aware of federal Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer’ 32 page ruling declaring Prop 187 unConstitutional. That Prop, as I’m sure you remember as a Californian, was to restrict illegal immigrants access to benefits. Gray Davis refused to appeal to the SCOTUS, letting it die. It’s on the books as unConstitutional at that level…. unchallenged.
Then there is Plyler v. Doe in 1981, which was heard in SCOTUS and attempted to deny public education to undocumented aliens. The lower courts said no way Jose, so it was appealed to the High Court… which affirmed the ruling, saying:
Proponents of Prop 187 were more than annoyed that Davis allowed Prop 187 to die since denial of benefits may have been found to fit the “substantial state interest” test. But that’s a “what if”, so we live with the precedents we have… and that is federal laws and court precedents that prohibit denial of services to anyone in the country based on nationality or citizenship status.
Simple facts.
Obama knows this. There is no reason to put something in the bill that will cause the law to be dragged thru the courts and eventually deemed unConstitutional. He is also aware that any illegal alien will be allowed to obtain coverage for that reason, if they so apply. The burning question is, if undocumented, will they get their annual penalty bill for *not* being insured like the rest of the nation’s citizenry?
Therefore, for Obama to stand before a joint session of Congress, and face the nation to say this will not cover illegal aliens is a lie of political convenience… all proved to be blatantly false as laid out in court opinions past. This simple fact is inarguable, despite your best attempts to whitewash it as a noble endeavor.
BTW… some advice on those alert emails… because the double incoming is very annoying, I agree. I think I’ve mastered it, albeit I do forget on occasion. Here’s the trick:
1: When you first post, there are two option boxes
a: Notify with comments via email
b: Notify with “new comments” are added
If you want the reply text in readable format, check the former, and NOT the latter
2: On ensuing posts, you’ll now see only ONE box left… the box you did not check. Hint: *Don’t check it* or you get both notifications of a new comment, plus the comment.
Like I said, I keep forgetting and find myself piling up with double entries as well. When this happens, sort your inbox and delete all the ones marked “A New Comment” in one fell swoop. This should cure any lapse of memory with the dang boxes…
One of our moments of agreement on malpractice, Larry. Yes it’s impact is overstated as to it’s contribution to health care costs. But then again, Obama constantly overstates the contribution of the uninsured and ER costs just as quickly… which are even less a fiscal impact than malpractice. Again, it’s a political agenda game of words on both sides, all meant to deceive the uneducated public.
You might also notice that California’s cap was also limited, and there were indeed still larger than quarter mil judgments in particular arenas. So it was only partial reform at best, and the only ones getting rich are the attorneys.
But as I said, it all becomes cumulative. If you reduce the costs of doing business for the provider, you have more competition as they flock to the lesser expensive areas (i.e. Texas). Overall, competition always results in lower costs.
I believe the savings are not passed on to the consumers via insurance providers because it is such a small percentage of what they pay. They are, afterall, still over paying for services rendered, and the litigation still goes on despite the caps on judgments granted. Add the rising costs of the attorneys and defense. While it helps providers, it doesn’t… on it’s own… translate to the consumer.
But reducing the providers business costs is no less iimportant as a means to an end. I believe that premium costs would eventually come down if genuine malpractice reform were a part of the many arenas that could be done – all without added costs to the taxpayer and our debt, or the government creating a bureacracy of 50+ more departments of paperpushers, and getting into the health care business. All avenues of cost cutting prior to creating that public option should be in place and allowed to show results before something this industry altering is allowed to proliferate.
@MataHarley:
Thanks for the additional info in post 59.
You took what I knew and expanded it thoroughly and effectively, as always.
I reminded Larry of the Prop. 187 litigation in #35 and then referenced the Phyler v. Doe case in #43
His response was to tell me that I didn’t understand how the legal system works.
Perhaps his response to you will be different.
Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Joe Wilson Lied