13 November, 2009

Your Daily Dose of Health Care Reform Stupidity

Here it is, my darlings, the definitive shark-jumping, pooch-screwing, proving-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt-these-fuckwits-don't-belong-in-office moment:
Republican leaders have invested quite a bit of energy lately in comparing health care reform to terrorism. It was only a matter of time, then, that a Republican official would take the next step and compare the Commander in Chief to 9/11 hijackers.

Colorado State Senator David Schultheis (R-Colorado Springs) argued on Twitter this week: "Don't for a second think Obama wants what is best for U.S. He is flying the U.S. plane right into the ground at full speed. Let's roll."

Yesterday, the right-wing lawmaker said he's been misunderstood.
State Sen. David Schultheis said he didn't intend for a Twitter post accusing President Barack Obama of "flying the U.S. plane right into the ground" and ending with "let's roll" as a threat or a reference to United Flight 93, which crashed during the 2001 terrorist attacks.
"Let's roll" reportedly were the last words of Todd Beamer before he and other passengers tried to gain control of their hijacked jet. The plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field short of its intended target. [...]
[Schultheis] said he was angry about the president's fiscal policies but didn't mean to compare him to the hijackers.
No, of course not. Why would we get that idea?
Yeah.  Right.  Must've been a Freudian slip or something.  Totally innocent.  Riiight.

Excuse me a sec.


Sorry.  Just felt an inexplicable need to shout that.

Speaking of fucktards, Stupak's been awfully full of hisself since he got his Stupidity inserted into the House bill.  Now he's strutting around making threats.  Hey, Stupes - you're not as powerful as you think you are.

E.J. Dionne proves he's a dick by advising pro-choice Dems to suck it up and bow to Stupak's Stupidity.  Hey, E.J. - gotcher moral equivalence right here, assclown:
If pro-choice Democrats are going to be accused of "making the perfect be the enemy of the good" then so should the "pro-life" Democrats. And frankly, if anyone's going to be given extra points for morality I would at least give them to the people who have shown they feel some sense of moral dilemma rather than the wrecking crew who don't blink an eye at denying people health care merely because one of their dollars will touch a dollar that pays for insurance that might someday pay for an abortion. But then, I'm an immoral pro-choicer.
"Some principles are just more important than others," is that it?  Digby's right.  These anti-choice fucktards need to answer for that.  It's not the pro-choice crowd that threatened to derail the train first.

And while we're at it, let's talk about the women who will become victims of Stupak's Stupidity.

And while we're at it, let's talk about the hypocrisy of the RNC, whose health care plan allows elective abortions, although the supposed pro-life party could've opted-out of that coverage.  They voluntarily chose to keep coverage they and their Conservadem buddies want to deny other women.  Practice what you preach fail.

And while we're at it, let's talk about the morality of insurance providing Viagra at $1500 a bottle, but denying women coverage for things so basic as birth control, pelvic exams, and such.  Like Digby said, "I don't want my tax dollars touching even one milimeter of that overly engorged expense."  And how.

(Note to Daily Show: might want to look in to hiring Digby to write for the show.)

In more amusing news, Chuck Norris crosses a crazy bridge too far for Neil Cavuto.

In yet more amusing news, Connecticut voters think Lieberman's more of a Con than a Dem or Independent.  Wherever did they get that idea, I wonder?

Speaking of Lieberman, here's a good question:
In recent days, heated policy discussions in Washington have largely focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health care legislation carry significant price tags: roughly $100 billion and $80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)

In his New York Times column today, columnist Nicholas Kristof asks why hawks claim health reform is “fiscally irresponsible” while enthusiastically supporting a troop surge in Afghanistan, given the fact that fixing our broken health care system is, unlike a troop surge, essential to the health and well-being of Americans:
The health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.
So doesn’t it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?
Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?
Hawks like Lieberman and his disgusting little warhungry buddies need to answer those questions.  I doubt they're able to.

Oh, and Conservadems?  Your buddies the Cons aren't really your friends, no matter how much you help them stall health care reform.  Note how they're gunning for Ben Nelson now.

And, finally, looks like the crazy couple Bachmann and King might've kinda sorta broken some Congressional rules when they set up those tea parties on the White House lawn. They must be feeling proper little rebels, eh?

I'm sure they'll play the perfect little martyrs when they get spanked for their naughtiness.  Cons always do.

1 comment:

Cujo359 said...

My bet is that Bachmann and King will pay no penalty for this.