25 October, 2009

Your Daily Dose of Health Care Stupidity

Grab some coffee and settle in, my darlings.  Some important reading, here.

Kudos to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which isn't afraid to take on the President hisownself.  Nice to see progressives pushing a center-right Dem in the right (or should that be left?) direction.

They're not happy that he's trigger happy.  Neither are a lot of tried-and-true progressives.  Rep. Grijalva, who's about the only redeeming factor in Arizona politics right now, has a fantastic piece up on triggers and why we shouldn't have them (h/t).  He's still fighting the good fight for meaningful reform.  If you'd like to help him out, here's some suggestions.  And while you're at it, keep whipping the House.  We're winning.

No, really.  We are.  The public option was very nearly dead a few weeks ago; now it's very much alive, and while it's in no small part due to AHIP's dumbfuck antics (thank you, AHIP!), it's also in large part due to us:

Clyburn:
   Absolutely. Remember, when we came back after Labor Day, there were people who thought that the whole health reform bill was dead for the year. About 2 or 3 weeks later, after we had an opportunity to explain to people what we were doing, they said, "well, okay, we got a good plan, but the public option is off the table."
   Now, we are debating what form of the public option. There are those that said that the Senate had absolutely no way of passing a public option. Now they are saying there may be a form of the public option that the Senate will consider. That's all because the public has dialed in and they are in fact very much for some form of a public option. We're not saying it won't be. We're just saying "what form will take it?"

Good discussion at the above link about triggers, too.  What may surprise you is that the trigger the White House is after isn't the trigger you think.  Just to confuse everybody, there's not one, but many, triggers under consideration, some worse than others.  But we need to make it clear that a trigger of any sort is out of bounds.  If you want reasons, here's a good place to start (h/t).

We may be close to cloture in the Senate, and Pelosi's still fighting for a strong public option in the House (although she's signaled she's open to the opt-out compromise).  Now's not the time to lay off the pressure.  And let Obama hear from you.  Tell him to take yes for an answer.

Now, you didn't think I'd leave you without the pure-D stupidity, did ye?  Here ye go:
Following up on a story I've been following, Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, doesn't seem to recognize the wisdom of quitting when behind.


Land initially raised a few eyebrows when he condemned health care reform in unusually offensive terms. "What they are attempting to do in healthcare, particularly in treating the elderly, is not something like what the Nazis did. It is precisely what the Nazis did," Land said. In the same remarks, Land compared Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to Josef Mengele.


[snip]

After the Anti-Defamation League expressed some concerns, Land didn't apologize for the substance of his remarks, but he at least showed some regret: "It was never my intention to equate the Obama administration's healthcare reform proposals with anything related to the Holocaust.... Given the pain and suffering of so many Jewish and other victims of the Nazi regime, I will certainly seek to exercise far more care in my use of language in future discussions of the issues at stake in the healthcare debate."

So, problem solved, right? Wrong. Reader J.C. flagged this story in which Land completed the 360-degree turn.
One week after apologizing for comparing Democratic leaders to the Nazis, [Land] has reneged on his promise to stop using such comparisons.... Land "still believes there are connections to be made between some underlying philosophies held by the Germans and others in the first half of the 20th century, and certain elements under discussion in the health care reform debate today." Land argued that the philosophies of some of those pushing health-care reform "bear a lethal similarity in their attitudes toward the elderly and the terminally ill and could ultimately lead to the kinds of things the Nazis did." Land also attacked those who were attempting "to remove the Third Reich as a subject of discussion when it comes to the healthcare debate."
Three things to keep in mind. First, Land's promise about avoiding Nazi references seems to have lasted one whole week. Second, to argue that health care reform bears a "lethal similarity" to Nazi tactics is obviously crazy.

And third, Land is concerned that people might want to "remove the Third Reich as a subject of discussion when it comes to the healthcare debate"? Well, sure. They want to remove the subject as part of the debate because it's completely insane.
So it is.  So it is.  This probably explains why Land is so damned fond of it.

Right, then, my darlings.  Chins up.  We're in the home stretch.  Soon, health care reform of some description shall be passed, and the frothing rabid right shall be turning their considerable talent for stupid to other legislation.

I can hardly wait, can you?

1 comment:

Chris Rhetts said...

This guy Richard Land is an amazing jerk. The more you know about him the slimier he gets. On behalf of the SBC, he promoted "A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming", which is nothing more than a paste up of GW denialist hackery - much of which has since been disavowed by the very sources which the authors cite - and STILL available at the ERLC website. THAT piece ends with:

"Therefore we pledge to oppose quixotic attempts to reduce global warming. Instead, constrained by the love of Jesus Christ for the least of these (Matthew 25:45), and by the evidence presented above, we vow to teach and act on the truths communicated here for the benefit of all our neighbors."

It seems especially obscene to me that anyone who claims to represent a higher morality would cynically employ Jesus and the Bible to back up what amounts to nothing more than a cheap, politically motivated hit piece.