Healthcare Plan Misinformation Video-induced Debate

Remove all ads!

I know, with Obama's looming "death panels" condeming the elderly to death, (see Palin) and all the "Nazi" symbolism (see Rush), it makes me "shudder" as well. It all means we are either heading down the road to:

1. Nazism
2. Communism
3. Both
4. Or even worse - like Canada.

 

Last I checked Soros was a billionaire and he pretty much single handidly created moveon.org and its spin off organizations. He hasn't just dropped a few million every now and then. If anything he may be deserving of the title of "The King of Astroturf". You should never underestimate what this man is capable of.

Let's keep this forum civil and I believe the rules stipulate that personal attacks are prohibited. I may have to flag your post so a moderator can check it out.

I disagree 100%. I don't believe I've seen any "corporate" opposition to health care reform. If anything I expect business is all in favor of it. Health care costs are a major expense of any business. If that expense is eliminated as the government is taking care of it that would be a boon to businesses. A small business doesn't have a lot of leverage when negotiating prices with a large insurance company. They will have far better luck having lobbyists for small businesses making sure that the brunt of the cost is stuck with the employees and large businesses.

You will have to excuse me if I don't take the word of a poster at Democratic Underground as opposed to a CNN editor at large.

This one is also a few weeks old, but I don't believe the timeliness diminishes the message being said. In it the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons says "The American Medical Association has sold out patients and the profession by endorsing House bill that supports government medicine.

Spoiler

WASHINGTON, July 17 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons issued the following statement from Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, in response to the AMA's endorsement of House Bill 3200:

"The American Medical Association has sold out patients and the profession by endorsing House bill that supports government medicine.

"Why did the AMA do it? For a few dollars increase in Medicare reimbursement rates. In effect, it's told patients, 'It's about the money, stupid.'

"We don't think that a miniscule raise -- one that can be revoked at any time on Congressional whim -- is worth selling out for government control of medicine. The AMA has sold patient choice, patient privacy and patient control to the highest bidder.

"The AMA had the unbridled nerve to stand up with the President and pledge to reduce costs -- on the very day that it sent out an alert to its members urging them to contact Congress in support of a physician pay raise.

"The AMA is trying to paint any doctors who oppose them as being 'anti-reform,' but that's not true. Our doctors are for reform -- real reform that puts patients and doctors in control, not the government.

"The AMA is not alone. Organized medicine has been spineless. Today a surgeon from Arkansas told me that he is appalled that the American College of Surgeons sent him an email saying, in effect, that they wanted a seat at the table, and were willing to endorse the bill if that's what it took to get that seat


"Today we've heard comments like: 'The AMA is a disgrace.' 'All physicians who care for patients should drop out of the AMA immediately.' '. . .has a track record of toadying up to government in exchange for handouts to its cronies that, in turn, are extorted from us as taxpayers and as honestly working physicians.'

"Thousands of doctors are joining the 'Dump the AMA' bandwagon. Signatures are pouring in to the 'Take Back Medicine' petition to Congress and the President. (See www.TakeBackMedicine.com) These are the doctors who really care about their patients."

 

Really? I'll have to thank him.

 

Has anyone come up with a reason why Pelosicare would include the language in question? Why should it be a doctor's responsible to discuss living wills, and when it is time to give up the ghost? While I'm not quite convinced that it will turn into "death panels" you have to admit it is a little creepy to stick this into a health care reform bill.

This image has been circulating the right blogosphere. It pretty much sums up how I feel about your 1-4



EDIT: For clarification. The image on the left is from when Bush was President and was praised as protected free speech. The image on the right started popping up in Los Angelos a couple of weeks ago and has been considered racist and treasonous. The picture on the right normally has the word "Socialism" under it.

 

Because a lot of people don't have them. But the main reason was because of the Schiavo case.

That Obama is really GWB?

 

Correction: The image on the left is from when Bush was President and was widely condemned by all but the ridiculous fringe left, while conceded as an expression of free speech. It also didn't appear until after Bush started 2 wars. The image on the right is considered racist (black man, white face), remarkably hypocritical (considering all the 'treason' accusations the right spent the last 8 years popularizing), and above all, stupid, drawing almost universal mockery. The picture on the right normally has the word "Socialism" under it, further certifying how unbelievably stupid it is. Because, you know, when someone brings up the Joker, the first thing I think of is state ownership of public assets. Incidentally, the picture on the right is also conceded as protected free speech. If anyone on the left is calling it "treason," I assure you, they're just being ironic.

Step out of the coccoon, Snook. For just a few minutes a day.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that the right took such a principled stand on how offensive it is to portray The President as Hitler, they copied it a thousand times over...on a black dude. Many of these images started popping up before Obama even took office. And here I thought "conservatives are much more polite, even minded, and tolerant than liberals."

 

This has become a very technical thread, so I'll bring my simple, rustic Canadian perspective here before I go out and fix my log cabin.

I never had much respect for the left wing douchebags who organized buses to manufacture mass protests against Vietnam or Iraq. They shouted down their opponents. That may be accepted as a form of free speech but it's the sign of a juvenile mind, and accomplishes very little.

At the present time, I have little respect for the right wing douchebags organizing buses to manufacture mass protests against health care reform. Their shouting down of their opponents is just as despicable. I don't care what political stripe is doing it, it's pathetic and reminds me of grade school playground behaviour.

 

I've read through parts of the bills, and I saw parts of that, but not all. Now, you're right, it isn't finished yet, and all that may be cut, but what worries me is that it was considered good enough to make it this far. On the last point, you're right again, Obama isn't proposing this, and I wish people would stop saying that. He is pushing it, though (even though he probably has no more idea what's in it than most of us). And the Dems in Congress are proposing it (his team).

I'm not worried about more choice, I'm worried about less. So far, I haven't seen a single thing in the Senate version that indicates it'll be optional.

I'm sorry, Tal, but that's BS. The article Snook linked actually talked about specific mechanics in the bill and then talked about what that means and likely outcomes. Also, those were from an individual perspecive, not a business one. We know, because it was talking about the impact on individuals. You're article, on the other hand:
1.) doesn't even contradict Snook's.
2.) never discusses any kind of actual mechanic.
3.) only talks about idealized end-goal features.

Actually, I think it'd be professional counselors (maybe lawyers) talking about it with the patients, not the doctors.

I knew this would come up the moment I saw it, and it's just as idiotic as I expected. It's THE JOKER!!! Any comparison with anyone would have that person in clown-white face. Unless this came out a year before the costume for the new Joker was even concieved, everyone in America should recognize that immediately, and any claims of racism are just idiots spewing hate at whatever they can (and yes, I suspect most of it is race-fueled hate).

That doesn't make much sense to me. Unless the people behind this are the same ones who cried 'treason' even after the courts ruled, it isn't hypocritical.

I actually thought it was funny, and though provoking. Comparing the new president, the one who's advocating a massive change he doesn't even understand (and as much as admits to not understanding) in a critical gov't system compared to The Joker, the chaotic madman from Batman. Critical, harsh even, but there are certain comparisons.

Yeah, that part doesn't really work. Joker = Socialism = wtf? Joker is anarchy.

 

Actually, I do. What you failed to realize is that all that site did was repost stuff from other places. If I had posted the same article from CNN does that make it more credible? Now, if it had been an opinion piece (like your DU link) then I think you would have a legitimate argument.

By the way, sorry for missing the smiley. I may have to pay NOG to teach a class on how to break up someone's post and add comments in the middle. There has to be an easy way to do it that I haven't figured out.

 

NOG, for almost the entire Bush Presidency, ANY criticism of Bush, be it punditry, serious scholarly work, or simply man in the street dissatisfaction, was met with a cry of "Treason!" Heck, one of the Right wings most popular talking heads even published a book entitled "Treason" or some such. It was utter nonsense, of course, and everyone but the seriously deluded right wing nutters dismissed such talk as political hyperbole and good old-fashioned avoidance of the real frigging issue.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, well, as Gnarff used to say "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" (which is odd, because I learned it as a simple "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", but I digest*) If the Democrats now make the same claim about any criticism levied at Barack, well, the Reps can hardly claim the moral high ground on that issue, now can they.

That said, the Dems should also be wary of becoming the New Boss (same as the Old Boss) -- I thought the picture of Obama as the Joker was funny, and it takes someone with a real chip on their shoulder to haul out the tired old race card on that one. As criticism it's somewhat incoherent, as Obama is not really an anarchist or a loonie, but it's a funny comment nonetheless.

*Blue Harvest shout out, for those who think I'm just stupid

 

The Obama as Joker photo was funny, and might have been biting commentary...until they added the word SOCIALISM to it. Then it became clear it's author is just an idiot, and not making a relevant point.

I disagree Nog. It isn't "spewing hate" to point out that many people would view putting a black man in white face is an expression of racism. I agree with you that that isn't how it was meant - it was an obvious reference to Heath Ledger's Joker. But the meanings of the visuals can and do overlap. Believe it or not, there are people out there completely unaware of last year's Batman movie, and will simply see Barack Obama in whiteface and lipstick, with scary blackened eyes.

Not so much the people who made the poster (though it wouldn't surprise me, since the author seems pretty dim), but the people who are gleefully passing it around now and trying in vain to rub the left's face in it (namely, most of the prominent right-wing blogs), are the hypocrites. They are the ones who made accusations of treason - one of the most offensive things you can say to someone in the realm of politics - seem like the norm.

I get the whole "he's going to bring chaos" argument. That's fine. Not terribly original or effective, but fine. The part about him being ignorant of the consequences of his actions is far less compelling.

@ LKD,

Thank you. Some things are so obvious they transcend ideology.

 

Right-click "Quote"->Open in New Tab

Highlight and Ctrl-C the entire {QUOTE=.....} portion (for later use)

Insert breaks between portions of the quoted passage, ending each quote with {/quote}

At the beginning of each new quoted passage, paste that copied {QUOTE=....} portion

***ALL { and } should be replaced with [ and ] in actual use***

Hope that helps.

Oh, and to quote multiple people, open them all in tabs and copy/paste them all into one of the tabs.

This is my point. Did the same right-wing nuts that called "Treason" also publish this piece? If not, if it was some random creative journalist or online artist, then it isn't hypocracy, because we're talking about two different groups. You yourself said you can't attribute that "Treason!" to the entire right wing.

This is true, and we all know the left has the same kind of extremist nut-jobs the right has.

When was it published? Because I saw it, in the current context, as an accusation that the bill Obama is pushing will end up creating anarchy. If it was up before he was even elected, though, then you're right, it's nonsense.

I think the only people who honestly wouldn't recognize that as the new Joker are probably the Amish. Even if you didn't see the movie, even if you payed no attention to it whatsoever, it was on about every third commercial for months, and most blogs that I saw (including political news ones, even they took a second off for it).

Even for the 5 people who honestly had no idea that was the joker, though, it's pretty obvious it's some kind of scary clown; unless black clowns wear black make-up instead of white makeup (and I've seen black clowns in white make-up). To call that racism means you are specifically looking for racism in everything you can get it in.

That's a good point, but I think it just shows how they were never serious about the 'treason' claims to begin with. Their cries of 'treason' are about as serious as the cries of 'racism' from the left on this poster are. In fact, I think we can make a good comparison between the two:
Right: 'treason', 'freedom-hater'
Left: 'racist/sexist', 'any form of ignorant, stupid, retarded, etc.'

Those seem to be the favorite barbs of each side, and they're all ridiculous 99% of the time.

 

But, again, those are all forms of popular media. There are many people in America, believe it or not, who don't watch any TV or peruse blogs at all. I know several. It still doesn't change the fact that putting black face on a white man - and vice versa - is a well-established form of negative racial expression. The cries of racism regarding this poster have been few, and I would agree pretty silly. But you can't simply dismiss how other people might view it just because you don't see it that way. And you don't have to be "looking for racism" to acknowledge this.

I would say that perhaps one could argue that the cries of 'treason' from the right were probably never serious...at least initially. They were still extremely cynical and irresponsible. The problem is, they caught on, and gullible people thought they were serious. People don't realize that Ann Coulter doesn't actually believe half the crap she writes in her books; that she's just in it for the controversy and the book sales. That doesn't stop people from believing her. Therein lies the problem. It isn't just unserious words to a very significant portion of the right, it's "the truth the liberal media doesn't want you to hear."

 

Multi-quote? Hmm, I'll have to look into that. Thanks.

As for the name in every quote, I like it. I find I don't like tracking through a post to the last quote that specified a person to see who said it all. I realize it's really optional, but that's how I do it.

DR, I'll agree that black-face on a white man and vice versa are typically racist things, but there are significant and obvious exceptions. A white special ops officer in black clothing, black hat, black face, and with a black, scoped machine gun isn't a white man in black face, and it isn't racist. It's a real-world portrayal of a real profession. It associates the man in the outfit with everything the outfit symbolizes: power, secrecy, honor, killing, etc. Likewise, a black man with a white face, huge red make-up lips, and huge dark patches around the eyes isn't a black man in white face, it's a clown. If you can't at least recognize that as a clown, you are not a member of western society (and I'll be most people who aren't members of western society in the US would recognize it).

 

Nog, context matters. I suppose its pointless to continue arguing something so trivial, so I'll just end by saying that the Obama Joker poster isn't as cut-and-dried as you're claiming. The Ledger Joker makeup is more reminiscent of black-face stage paint than it is an actual circus clown, even though I'm aware that the Joker is supposed to be a twisted version of a clown. Clowns are made to look friendly and silly, but the new Joker's makeup is meant to look menacing. I doubt a person totally unaware of the Joker would look at that Obama poster and say "Ooh goody! Where's the elephants?" He doesn't look like a clown in that poster, he looks like a menacing crazy black man in whiteface. I realize you just aren't getting the significance of the white face/black face thing and the reaction it evokes in people of color, but I also don't see much point in continuing to belabor the point. Let's just move on.

 

"It’s time to water the tree of liberty"

The right wing nutters at the town halls are getting scarier. MSNBC reported that cameras filmed a protester with a handgun strapped to his leg the meeting before Obama arrived. The man was seen carrying a sign saying “It’s time to water the tree of liberty.”

​

With guys like that around the Secret Service must really have its hands full these days.

That aside, there is evidence piling up that the insurance lobby inspired the recent Republican fire storm over Health Care. Two interviews with Wendell Potter, a former executive with health insurer Cigna.

​

Here is Republican Pollster Frank Luntz' market tested and well polled 28 page memo - "THE LANGUAGE OF HEALTHCARE 2009 - THE 10 RULES FOR STOPPING THE “WASHINGTON TAKEOVER” OF HEALTHCARE"

 

Nice links, Ragusa. Thanks.