First, Rep John Boehner is for sale. Yes, I know this is not news. I know that after activists judges on the Supreme Court ruled companies are really human and as human deserve to buy their own candidates, Rep Boehner ran up to Wall Street to sell himself to the highest bidder. I know that last week Boehner ran to a business lobbyist meeting and sold himself to them also. If there is any question as to whether he did sell himself you only have to look at his immediate actions afterward to verify the sale. Days after his Wall Street client paid for his services, he came out against any Wall Street reform. After cleaning up and immediately following his rendezvous with the business lobby he announced that we should just end all new regulation for awhile because business just can’t make it if they have to follow any new regulation. If the federal government would just let them do what they want,dump where they want, feed us whatever they want,make cars as safe as they want,hire the ages they want and pay them what they want… business could turn this country around. You only have to look at their record with regulation to get a good laugh out of that plan. Seriously, they don’t follow safety regulation when they can be fined , but will follow them if we’d just give them a break for a little while?

The point is, we know Bohener is for sale, but today we know just what he is selling.

According to materials distributed by Boehner’s camp and obtained by POLITICO, lobbyists and other major donors across the country who give the maximum or help raise $100,000 will get meetings with Boehner, calls from senior aides with updates on the campaign and “VIP access to all events, including roundtables, briefings, breakout discussions and interactive panel discussions.”

That’s right, if you’re a lobbyists and you want a seat at policy roundtable discussions, if you want VIP treatment from the Republican party members up to and including the (prospective)Speaker of the House, if you want to be a part of the briefings… all you have to do is buy it.

Huh, I guess for the right price, everything is for sale. I just didn’t think the Republicans would be so brazen with their prostitution and selling of not just their bodies, but the rest of ours.

Of course there are many people who would say that nothing bad can come of this, there wouldn’t be any abuse and lobbyists wouldn’t get anything detrimental to the country out of these ‘arrangements’. These people say, just trust in the Republicans, they have learned their lessons. Well, to them I give the second out of three stories.

Since 2008, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby has steered more than $250 million in earmarks to beneficiaries whose lobbyists used to work in his Senate office — including millions for Alabama universities represented by a former top staffer.

In a mix of revolving-door and campaign finance politics, the same organizations that have enjoyed Shelby’s earmarks have seen their lobbyists and employees contribute nearly $1 million to Shelby’s campaign and political action committee since 1999, according to federal records.

That’s right, when lobbyist paid for this Republican senator they got $250 million in return.

It’s not that these are all bad earmarks…

The University of Alabama System, which has received $175 million in Shelby earmarks since 2008, the first year lawmakers had to publicly declare their sponsorship of pet projects. The earmarks have included $30 million for a state-of-the-art science center, $10.5 million for Gulf of Mexico weather research and $10.2 million for facilities and equipment at the Tuscaloosa campus.

I’m sure these and many others are very worthy for Shelby’s state. The problem is, with Boehner going from state to state collecting money from lobbyist so he can show them a good “VIP” time, the potential for him to pull a “Shelby” is extremely probable. When you add in Boehners actions after his other meetings with lobbyists, this kind of Shelby type abuse is pretty much a certainty.

I have always said “Pork is in the eye of the beholder” and it’s true. I live on the Space Coast, so any ‘pork’ that keeps NASA’s doors open is good for my area so I’m ok with making a farmer in Iowa pay $0.12 additional tax to make that happen. That farmer of course does not like that additional money coming from his pockets at all, and when he decries this pork as bad… he has many on his side screaming the same thing. Well, they only scream about the horrors of pork spending when it doesn’t benefit them, if it was a $0.12 tax increase on Floridians going towards research on how to grow corn in 30 days or less for 1/2 the cost, these farmers would be happy as pigs in mud for that money. So you see, “Pork” is in the eye of the beholder. So what’s the problem with Boehner selling himself and Shelby kicking back to the people who bought him?

RNC fails to report $7M in debt to FEC

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the part I am interested in is this

Mr. Pullen’s amended financial reports to the FEC show that the RNC engaged in deficit spending of $2.2 million in April and $3.7 million in May, spending more on raising money and on operating costs than it gathered in donations.

It’s not just that the Republican National Committee is hiding the loss of money, it’s that even though they profess to be ‘fiscal and ‘conservative”, even though they are going to run as being the ones we should trust with our economy, even after 8 years of Bush’s economic catastrophe, these people still deficit spent themselves into a $7 million hole in 2 months and then tried to hide their spending!

One story tells us they are for sale.
One story tells us they will give back in three’s to those who bought them.
One story tell us even in the face of a nationwide economic collapse, they will still spend money from hard working people, even when they don’t have it to spend!

Why are people even thinking about trusting these financially irresponsible, Paris Hilton spending, buffoons again?

When they are bought by the lobbyists they will pay the subject of that lobby back at an exponential rate even if they don’t have the money on hand. There is always some social security to cut, or medicare payment to curb. It’s not that they don’t care about the middle class, but let’s face it, the VIP’s are the one who pay for a privilege and how can an unemployed machinist on Main Street compete with that?

Wrong.

O’Reilly lies to Coburn:

‘Nobody’s ever said’ at Fox you’ll go to jail if you don’t buy health insurance. Oh yes they have.

After Senator Coburn told a town hall meeting not to believe what they hear on Fox News, Bill-O decided he was going to take it upon himself to research his station and find out just when it was that anyone on Fox News said that under “ObamaCare” you would go to jail if you didn’t get health insurance.

O’Reilly: Well, tell me, what — because it doesn’t happen here.

And we researched to find out if anybody on Fox News

had ever said you’re going to jail if you don’t buy health insurance.

Nobody’s ever said it.

Well there you go, that solves it. This rumor was nothing more than another attempt of the “Lame stream media” to attack the honest hardworking fact checkers at Fox News, they researched this problem and found it to be an utterly false accusation.

except..

Beck: But if you don’t play by their new rules on health care, oooh, here’s a new little twist. Have you heard this? You’re going to be looking at a fun little stint in jail.

and

… But if you don’t play ball with them now, if you don’t get into their government health care, there will be jail time. And that of course was

Glenn Beck told his audience on Nov. 12, 2009 that they would go to jail. The next day on O’reilly’s own show, Beck was a a guest and repeated the same claim.

BECK: You know, this is the first time in history in our country where, just to be a citizen, just to not go to jail, you have to buy something.

This doesn’t include the Hannity shows and guests he’s had on who echoed same statements.

Sean Hannity tells viewers,

“Penalties for people who don’t get

government-mandated health insurance,

uh, jail time, a possibility?”

November 10, 2009:

If you just happen to be walking by the TV and the sound was off, you still got the news from Fox when they said at the bottom of the screen “Comply or go to jail.”

In a strange twist, a member of the Fox News team admits this was a falsehood spread by Fox News. Neil Cavuto has owned up to the myth Sen. Coburn was talking about.

“I’ve
researched this, and a
number of Fox
personalities had made that comment.”

Cavuto mentioned this fact the day after the O’reilly/Coburn interview, and even then O’reilly again went on his and insisted that  Sen. Coburn “didn’t really have his facts in line,” when it came to saying Fox News perpetuated the jail time myth.

2+2=7

If you are a viewer of Fox News of course you see that this is all just Lame Stream Media attack and spin, how in the hell could you see anything else? To you, Fox is just trying to keep the record straight and they are really having a hard time being the only name in news to give the “fair” and the “balanced”. The problem is, Fox news operates in another reality where they make up the facts and the research to back them up.  This is not the same as MSNBC spending night after night attacking Sarah Palin for using RNC donations for her clothes, her not returning the money for the ‘bridge to no where’ but spending it instead, or  her pimping for the Tea-Party Express which turns out not to be a grass-roots movement but a Republican Political Action Committee movement made up to fool real tea-party members into donating more money. All of that is real, researched truth,  which is the opposite of what you get when you turn to Fox News.

Look, if people want to believe in leprechauns and unicorns they can, there is nothing wrong with that. Thought and fantasy are still free in this world even if saying them out loud isn’t in some places. But for a “News” network to be considered ‘fair’ or ‘balanced’ or ‘trusted’ or hell, ‘news’ they have to follow the same rules as the others. If they want to only report on the other sides scandals and misdeeds to make them out to be the party not to be trusted, so be it! If they want to only report on their sides altruistic ideals and actions to make them seem like better party ok. They can’t claim ‘fair’ or ‘balanced’ but ok, have at it. But they cannot just make stuff up and repeatedly get away with it.  Not if their goal is News. If their goal is money, your money..as much of it as they can get, then hell Bat Boy journalism for everyone ! But stop labeling the product incorrectly.

This network has pretty much reduced themselves to, “Bat boy journalism” yet they demand to be treated like real journalism and will cry like scorned little girls the minute they aren’t taken as seriously as a Walter Cronkite-like news organization. Unfortunately for those of us who chose not to believe in unicorns and Bat Boy, we are forced to defend that which is slanted, but true because that slanted journalism is the excuse for the fake or made up journalism. The problem then becomes that we inspire more slant instead of more neutral.

If we didn’t have to live through the consequences of Bat Boy journalism and the voting populists I’d say let them have their sensational stories because like any Jerry Springer episode, they can be good for a laugh.  It’s when we would have to suffer through the choices of the ‘believers’ that we get not just Jerry Springer on TV, but Jerry Springer in the White House that it becomes a detriment to all.

I’m not knocking Springer, but I don’t want this country governed by those who believe his show is on the same level of journalism as a slanted, but accurate,  Rachael Maddow.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fox Pushed Healthcare Jail-Time Falsehood (unbiasedtruth.net)
• Coburn Softens His Criticism Of Fox News, Appears On Network To Say ‘I’m Glad Fox Is There’ (thinkprogress.org)
• Time Magazine Fact Checks Fox News: No Jail Time For People Who Don’t Buy Health Insurance (huffingtonpost.com)
• Tea Partiers Get Their News From Fox And Are More Likely To Justify Violence Against The Government (thinkprogress.org)
• Poll: Tea partiers fear socialism, but love Social Security and Medicare (dailykos.com)
• O’Reilly vs. O’Reilly: They’re both lying (dailykos.com)

“Yeah, I don’t understand how to play here yet.”

This was met with the humorous , yet essential, advice of…

You have to throw in the occassional [sic] Fuck Off! and then I think you’ll have it..

Anyone who is part of a community like ours, may  find the words crude, but they know the advice is integral.  It doesn’t matter how civil a debate starts, when two opposing figures meet, if one is bound by political party doctrine to ‘deny at all cost’, to live the motto of ‘just say Hell No!’ it doesn’t matter if the other figure is is bound by the same codes as Tibetan Monks, there’s going to eventually be a ‘fuck you’ thrown into the debate.

It was this ‘field guide’ that brought about an insightful reply from Chuck, and I put it here because of the debate it produced. It is probably the most childish,ridiculous and asinine  debate ever held by adults, but once again.. when the party of ‘Hell NO!” meets anyone saying “uh, yes”  intelligence, logic, and reason is soon lost as you will soon see.

Quote from: uselesslegs on March 31, 2010, 02:40:42 PM

Maybe I can explain it a little bit with some other happenings around the U.S.  Though they may seem very direct and to the point and not as “left to interpretation”…well…let’s start.

Item One.

Recently Scott Brown, newly elected Senator from Mass, has said and suggested that MSNBC host Rachael Maddow is going to run against him during reelections.  Through sources on his end, he’s said that she’s “secretly” gathering up steam and will file and run.  Maddow has stated on her show she is not running, has no intention of it.

End of story right?  Nopey.

Scott Brown was asked on a radio show, following Maddow’s statement,  what he thought of her statement that she wasn’t going to run.  He replied, without ever saying, “well, I guess that changes things, har har”, and instead replied, “mumble mumble….bring it on.”  Implying that he still believed she was indeed going to run and that he was ready for her.

Next Maddow, with her own money, took out a front page ad (in the area of interests) newspaper calling Scott Brown a liar and that she was definitely, emphatically, not running.  She had/has no desire to run and that this was getting silly and to quit saying or implying she was running and using her name to collect campaign donations from individuals, with a lie.

His reply?  He said her front page newspaper statement looked like it came straight from one of the writers at the DNC and that he thought Maddow would make an interesting candidate.  Thus never admitting that he (Mr. Brown) was in error and making sure to twice “imply” through his choice of words, that Ms. Maddow was and STILL IS a candidate.

Item two.

Nine members of a Michigan Militia group were arrested and charged with plotting to kill a law enforcement officer and then many others with homemade bombs, in hopes of starting an uprising against the Government…oh and to battle with the anti-christ.

You would think across the Blogosphere and forums alike, we’d see the individuals involved being denounced…but not so fast mister fancy pants…they’re being defended.  Not by seemingly other milita groups or like minded individuals…but rather…by individuals who are making sure to note that anything this current Government/Administration does is to be suspect and dubious.

You’d think something like this would be pretty cut and dry.  Wanna kill law enforcement officers, check.  Wanna kill many more people with homemade bombs, check.  Wanna be prepared and kill the anti-christ, check.  What is our governments REAL agenda here, che…what?

What you will find, in your journey here, will be two sides to the same coin, almost constantly at odds.  Oft times from political stances.  Oft times from personal interpretations…or both.

It’s the only place in the universe where 2+2 is debatable.

Welcome aboard, you poor fucker.

More than just being explanatory of today’s political world and how truth is ignored for rhetoric and whatever can incite the masses against any opposition, one part of that sticks out as so true it’s scary.

It’s the only place in the universe where 2+2 is debatable.

You would think adults all across the political spectrum could agree on that elementary concept, but they don’t. Because one side of the political spectrum has made it their goal for at least 4 years, to oppose anything coming from the current administration, 2+2 does not equal 4 if this administration or anyone speaking in favor of this administration is the one saying it. The Maddow/Brown debate is a perfect instances in a long, long list of other equally amazing 2+2 does not equal 4 examples. The fact that Ms. Maddow has said on her show, said in interviews, taken out a full page add to alert the world of the simple fact that unequivocally and emphatically she is not running against Scott Brown doesn’t matter to the party of “Hell NO!” because to them, 2+2 is not 4 and it is Scott Brown’s 2+2=3 equation that is the fundamental truth here.

The argument that this ‘2+2=4′ statement caused, ended up twisting logic until it no longer resembled its former self.  Some where along the way ‘fact’ became, and  is now, interchangeable with opinion,rumor and gossip.

Here’s an example

Keith Olbermann is biased and does slant opinions against the Right. But that does not mean he is making the news up and reporting his ‘rumor’ as fact. He may not focus on an issue like when a Democrat is caught having an affair with his mistress but he will spend 1/2 his show telling you about a Republican getting caught having an affair with his chief of staffs wife. Slanted, yes! but it is still based on the fact that the Republican did sleep with his chief of staffs wife. That nugget is truthful and not an opinion to be batted around until it becomes a truth in the eyes of the viewers[insert Obama not of US birth] .  Keith Olbermann, no matter how biased he is, is still telling you the truth when he’s telling you the Republican slept with his COS wife.

2+2=4

This goes unnoticed because those who want to de-legitimize everything even remotely ‘Left’, stick to their guns with the idea that since Olbermann is truthful in his bias , then so is Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck who made the opinionated allegation, without a basis in fact, that this President was an white-hating racist, is telling the truth and is delivering a fact because Olbermann reported more on the Republican than he did the Democrat. What’s worse, Beck has spent so much time repeating this concept that it’s believed by 31% of those polled. They can’t differentiate the difference in a “liberal news show’ talking more about a factual Republican scandal is not on the same untruthful level as another show presenting their opinions as facts until they become believed as the almighty truth. It is a ‘tit for tat’ that they just don’t get. Sure the Liberals and Democrats opposed George Bush, but when you look at why it’s not like they were wrong for opposing him. The US just does not torture or we just don’t preemptively  invade countries.. These are real,honest,valid and acceptable differences to have. Not liking the amount of time President Obama uses a teleprompter is just as valid of a complaint, saying he is therefore  unable to run the country, is not!

And yet, like everything else, that statement is somehow debatable…

So, back to my fundamental question, what is the arguement [sic] to believe 1 biased source but not another?

Fox news,most of the GOP,Sarah Palin and followers,Tea-party members along with the most if not all of the rest of the people trying to de-legitimize the other side of the aisle, have decided that their opinions and allegations are just as reliable as being truthful as actual facts given by an ‘enemy source’ whether that be MSNBC,Jon Stewart,President Obama,any Democrat leader or any left-leaning person out there.
When anyone tries to point this inaccuracy out, either they really can’t understand the concept that opinion is not fact and fact is not fiction if it’s told by liberal, or they just don’t care because their hate knows no bounds. Either way  they revert back to the concept of

You deem you are the ultimate say so on who is saying 1+1 = 2. And, incidentally enough, all the people you like get it right, and all the people you don’t like don’t get it right.

You are trying to process all this inside your own bias.

Your main problem, is you refuse to believe the bias of the broadcasters

Only when you understand that can you even begin to answer my question: How can we believe the truth when it comes from a biased source?

In order for me to understand, I need to believe Glenn Becks opinion that Obama is a white-hating racist.. when I accept this as truth, then I can see that  fact given by a biased reporter and opinion given by Fox News are the same thing.

2+2 =4 is now debatable and depending on where you ‘lean’ is what your answer is. Keith Olbermann, because he is biased and gives more time to Republican scandals, is not factually correct when he tells you the answer is 4 unless you also recognize that Glenn Beck telling you the answer is 3 is also correct because they are both biased. So either both are to be believed or neither are.

I told you this was going to be childish,ridiculous and asinine.

This argument of ’slant and bias’ not affecting the actual truth is a fair point though.  You can have a conservative explain  a factual event and a liberal  explain  the same event and while the reasoning behind the event may be slanted and bias, that doesn’t change the facts of the event.  2 maybe a sissy-boy who liked to play with dolls growing up to the conservatives or 2 might have been a devoted pet-lover with a deep seeded love for parrots, but when added together 2 +2 is still going to equal 4.

It’s not that I am deeming only those I agree with as being ‘factual’ or that I disbelieve the other broadcasters, say Fox News, because of their bias.  It’s just that I deem those reporting  actual truths as being better than those reporting opinion as truth and that is the slight, but albeit glaring difference here.

Fox News is in the habit of reporting an opinion in a way that by the end of the day you can barely distinguish where opinion stops and fact starts and thus the opinion they started off with becomes as commonly accepted as the factual concept of gravity. For example, remember the ‘Czars’ Fox News went apoplectic on?

Obama’s Czars Spark Concerns Among Some Lawmakers

Although former U.S. attorney Alan Bersin and the late Russian ruler Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov appear to have nothing in common, thanks to President Obama, they now share a title.

The slant of the headline and first paragraph, makes it seem like the 1st time a head of a department was ever called ‘Czar’ was under President Obama.  Then there is the slant of the story itself

Czardom does not sit well with Sen. Robert Byrd. Though slowed by age, the West Virginia Democrat remains vigorous in his defense of the powers ceded to the Congress by the Constitution. He said he believes czars are a slick way of governing without having to answer to Congress.

There is no constitutional requirement that czars undergo those pesky Senate confirmation hearings.

Yes, those ‘pesky’ Senate confirmations.

If you watched Fox News during this “Fox News made up conspiracy” you would have thought Red Dawn was no longer fiction and we had been invaded by Russians, and with good reason! Glenn Beck let us know that President Obama, just a few short months into his 1st year, had 19 Czars and counting, compared to only 4 Czars in all of George Bush’s time. A month later, Greta Van Susteren  let us know that number had climbed to 30, she also raised the number of George Bush’s number of Czars from Beck’s 4 to 12. Who wouldn’t look at that and wonder, after being told how Communist President Obama was, what the hell was going on. The problem is, by most counts George Bush has 36 Czars filled by 46 different people. That’s a grand difference than Beck’s 4 and Greta’s 12. But this bad information was propagated day and night throughout the Fox News  “Fair and Balanced” 24 hour rotations.

If you had listened to Fox and Friends during the run up to the election,  you would have heard how then Senator Obama had tired of being asked whether or not he was Muslim and had said “Enough already. There’s nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but I have been a Christian for two decades now. Enough!”

When in fact, what he said was that he had been a Christian his entire life.

Does anyone remember the ‘indoctrinating our youth’ hoopla made up by Fox News?

Critics Decry Obama’s ‘Indoctrination’ Plan for Students

Which of course led to Fox’s next big question

“Will You Keep Your Kids Home the Day Obama Speaks to Schools?”

That was answered with a “yes, yes we will”. But why wouldn’t they, here is a former Muslim, who is turning this country communist, all you have to do is look at his ‘Czar’ list to see that… This “Unprecedented’…  ‘First time ever’ talk to school children is something all parents should fear.

Except it was not ‘unprecedented’. It was not the first time it’s been done, Republican Presidents have done it before.

What about this symbol?

Missile Defense Agency's Web site features a new red,white and blue logo-described as 'scarily' similar to Obama's campaign logo, as well as the symbol of Islam

Fox didn’t let the fact that this symbol was chosen more than 3 years ago interfere with informing you of how Islam was coming for America, while Rachael Maddow spent her time thoroughly de-bunking this myth before it could make it into another Fox-made rumor turned into fact. Unfortunately it made it’s way throughout the blog-sphere anyway, even with the original blogger retracting his accusation .

At 2200 words I realize that I could spend ten times that amount just on examples of this idea  that Fox News takes rumor and allegation and reports them like they are fact until they become unquestionable fact, but those who would read it all already agree and those who don’t agree wouldn’t care if I spent 1 million words and 10 times a many examples.

Those of us who do agree  don’t just ‘deem worthy’ those who are speaking for our political side, we deem worthy those who speak the truth instead of made up rumors. That is the difference,  we chose to believe the ones who tell us 2+2=4,  because  they’re telling us fact. We chose them over those telling us 2+2=7 because they don’t like the ‘lame stream media’, liberals and this President saying otherwise.

You don’t have to take my opinion that Fox news has a problem with facts. (R) James Coburn echoed the same sentiment the other day. At a town hall meeting he said..

Sen. Coburn: “I want to tell you, I do a lot or reading every say and I”m disturbed that we get things like what this lady said [a women had questioned him on people being jailed for not having healthcare, which he flatly denied and said it made good TV on Fox to say this, but it just wasn't true] and others have said on other issues that are so disconnected from what I know to the facts. And that comes from somebody who has an agenda that’s other than the best interest of our country. And so please balance and be careful

He implored people to not to be biased by Fox news.

And what we have to have is make sure we have a debate in this country so that you can see what’s going on and make the determination yourself. So, don’t catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody’s no good.

David Frum, he’s a pretty big deal in the land of conservatives, said a few weeks ago,

Frum: “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox.”

He was called into the bosses office the next morning and fired, but he says it wasn’t because of what he said.  Frum also posted a blog saying…

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead.

Just the other day, Frum said

“Fox, like [Rush] Limbaugh has been pushing the Republicans to the margins, making people angry,…”

The agenda for Fox News is not the agenda of the United States, but the viewers have been lead by Fox news and others like them to believe that it is. Fox News is the business to get ratings which equals money, to do this they must stand out above all the other news programs, to do that they have to have a ’shtick’ and they do. They ask a question or comment a rumor, they revert back to that ‘rumor’  throughout the day until the opposition is asked about said rumor, and their denial of the rumor is aired, and that’s when the rumor turns into fact.

Example

“I heard the Seth Nobody liked to play with dolls when he was a little boy” a commentator on the early morning says.

“Is that so?” says the co-host? “Well Bob, drop that doll and tell us what the weather’s like outside”

Later in the day, on another gossip labeled “News”  show on the same network this rumor pops up again,

“I don’t know where I heard this, but you know Seth Nobody played with barbies as a boy”

to which the co-host replies

“Well that would explain why he dresses so good.”

Before 24 hour news, that might go on for a day or so.. but now, it only takes hours until  you will get a “journalist” from the same network asking someone in charge, or even another reporter on his show.. “People are saying Seth played with girls dolls as a child, do you think he should really be in charge of the more manly dolls like GI Joe?”

Now that this ‘rumor’ is gaining interest, because we all like the salacious more than the mundane.. other, more reputable news outlet being to report,

“Today Seth Nobody denied he liked to play with dolls as a child”

and viola.. Seth, who supported single payer insurance, started off his morning as a normal guy with just a different political view; but by the end of the day he became a ratings horse for a money and political power-hungry gossip labeled “News” network. Poor Seth is now a freak who played with dolls. This is planted and replanted throughout the cycle until it spreads through the viewers and becomes  a known fact to them.Normal, upstanding liberal political leader Seth is just a queer-bait who cross-dresses at night when he’s home alone. You don’t want to vote with him do you?

You can see this process in action here..

Ignoring all the other examples in this interview, when the interviewer gets to the question about VP Biden’s comment of how the US will be tested under OBama, look at the bias that brings an utter falsehood into the world of facts as we know them today…

“..are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done and that America’s days as the world’s leading power are over?”

Well, no.. no he isn’t. That’s just your biased making things up and unfortunately getting too many people to believe you.

Of course we go back to the other ‘fear’ rumor which has made into a ‘fact’ that too many in this country believe as God’s honest truth.. Socialism

“What do you say to the people who say Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?”

The only people who were saying that was that interviewer, Fox News who wants rating and candidates who want power. It started as a fear technique to scare people out of voting for him, then it was passed around by the gossiping hens on Fox News, then their ‘journalists’ reported that all important  “People are asking….” it became not just news, but fact. William Randolph Hearst did this and it worked to make him rich just like it’s making Murdoch,Beck,Palin, Hannity and many others filthy stinking rich. Don’t believe me? Do you know what Rush Limbaugh gets for telling you these things?$400 million dollars!

Nah, he has no motive to make his show more interesting and keep his numbers up.

How about if they tell you themselves it’s all about the money, and controversy means cash.. would that change anyone’s perspective that they aren’t hearing truths, but what will make the person speaking more money?

With a deadpan, Beck insists that he is not political: “I could give a flying crap about the political process.” Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. “We’re an entertainment company,” Beck says. He has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth.

They are an ‘entertainment company’, and yet they’ve been able to convince most of the viewing population that they are the most trusted name in news. How is that even possible? Their goal is new entertainment and ratings.

As I said a few hundred words ago, I could go on and on, I could provide 1000’s of examples.. but those who would read it all already agree and those who don’t agree wouldn’t care if I spent 1 million words and 10 times a many examples, but in my quest.. I found an interesting ‘beginning’. Yes, the seeds were already there.. one only had to follow the 2008 campaign trail to see it, but something about this struck me like an “AHA! Here is where it really started to become true!” Because I think that up until that point, even with those at the town-meetings believing the rhetoric, it was still mainly a rumor. Until this broadcast sealed the rumor as truth forever. I found it on a blog called JOTMAN.COM. On this is site ‘Jotman’  has 3 videos shot the night of President Obama’s election win. One video is actually from Fox news the following morning showing a crowd of people at the gates of the White House, the broadcaster comments that they are probably drunk, her opinion of course,  and then she draws your attention to the flag someone in the crowd raises, it is the Russian  Communist flag. The Broadcaster is of course curious and wants this watched because ‘what does it mean?”, is it a sign?, do we need to fear this newly elected President or something just as ridiculous.

The second video is reportedly shot from inside the White House that same night, it’s the same crowd cheering at the gates, the man in the video sees the cheering and the flag and he is scared. As he says these  are  people coming out for Obama and cheering the fact that this country is going to change.. he just can’t believe what he is seeing. There is pushing and shoving, look there is the communist flag again, and torches! they’re all over the place it’s so ominous … it’s chaos!

Until you watch the video from the street.

The third video shows the crowd laughing,cheering,smiling and yes.. Chanting.

For the land of  the free….. and the home of the… Braaaaavvveeee!!!

Not to mention USA!USA!USA!USA!USA!

The horror!

Yes, there is the commie flag.. but instead of asking what the flag meant Fox News decided it meant communism was here and they must fight it every step of the way. Fox news knew that morning, like the mornings after every election there was bound to be some pretty pissed off people and they were going to stir up that emotion and bank it. That story was the perfect one to drop the ‘Hearst’ seed and watch it grow. It was  visual proof and with just the right question put to it, maybe another mention of it later, until finally reporting on as a fact in the later broadcasts, President Obama becomes an elected Communist .There was no need for anyone to hear the crowd, the silent view of it  with the added speculation would serve quit nicely. Those watching Fox that segment wouldn’t hear the glee and love for their country coming from that crowd, instead they would see a possibly drunken presence cheering the fact that communism has now come to America when she elected an Communist, Marxist, Socialist the night before. Before long Glen Beck would confirm their other fear, the fear that this  new president also hated white people.

We’ll never know what the flag meant one way or the other, we have video of the overwhelming happiness and pride in the country though, so to me it reinforces the rules of any political debate and that is  …It doesn’t matter how civil a debate starts, when two opposing figures meet no matter if the figures are bound by the same codes as Tibetan Monks there is going to eventually be a ‘fuck you’ thrown into the debate and to me, this was just a big Fuck you along with a cheerful  goodbye to the despotic  way the country was run for 8 very long years!

Of course this all just my opinion, not a fact and it’s because I know the difference that I deem others who also know the difference to be more worthy of my trust that those who don’t.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Maddow Senate Run ‘Completely Made Up,’ Despite Scott Brown Fundraising Pitch (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Scott Brown Uses Rachel Maddow to Increase Campaign Donations (lezgetreal.com)
• Rachel Maddow takes out full page ad to debunk Scott Brown’s fantasies (crooksandliars.com)

“It’s clear that the American people want health insurance reform.  They aren’t interested in Democratic ideas or Republican ideas.  They’re interested in the best ideas to reduce costs, guarantee choices and ensure the highest quality care.

They’re interested in ideas that will put them back in control of their own health care.

Throughout the debate on health insurance reform, Republican concepts and proposals have been included in legislation.  In fact, hundreds of Republican amendments were adopted during the committee mark-up process.  As a result, both the Senate and the House passed key Republican proposals that are incorporated into the President’s Proposal.”

A lot of GOP ideas… and that’s just Obama’s plan.. hell the Senate plan had 160 GOP amendments..

“Of the 788 amendments filed,67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim—as they are now, in fact, claiming—that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.”

of course they still voted no..

Why is the only way to bipartisan cooperation is if the Democrats fully embrace the GOP plan?  Shouldn’t the losing party be happy to get a seat at the table.. a seat that gives them almost half of everything they want? Is a bill with 49% (R) input and 51%(D) input not bipartisan enough when the country elected the (D) to decide the majority?

I simply don’t get how the GOP can get away with lying that there’s been no effort to include them. But,even more than that, I can’t understand this demand that  they should have their way in total  if the country is to see any bipartisanship come out of congress.  Is it the prefix ‘Bi’ that throws them? Do they think if they do anything ‘Bi” then they are supporting the homo’s? (disclosure, I love the ‘mo’s.. and this one will back me up on that).

What?

Can you come up with a better reason why the GOP is so anti ‘BI-partisanship” even going so far as to deny it exists when  the bipartisan components are so flamboyantly displayed?

Related articles by Zemanta

• GOP still won’t take ‘yes’ for an answer (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Obama Keeps All-Democratic Health Care Option Open (abcnews.go.com)
• GOP leader Boehner flips out because Obama had temerity to offer a HCR proposal (americablog.com)
• Senate Democrats Still Look to Reconciliation (politicalwire.com)
• to the Sound of Tea Partiers’ Heads Exploding: (brothersjuddblog.com)

I think that’s been the request of everyone over the last few weeks when it comes to ‘climategate’. Well, everyone except every conservative on the planet. To them this was Christmas morning and they were foolish children who could not wait another second to open their presents. Conservatives like Sen Inhofe who thinks that global warming is grand hoax, rejoiced a these emails because now global warming is over and done, that they won and we lost and those who believed it can get a ‘real life’.Yes, the world got together and conspired to perpetuate this hoax upon the entire world so Al Gore could get an Oscar and to make George Bush look bad.

Ok, that’s silly. I really don’t know why the world would want to create this ‘hoax’  that we as human race were hurting the planet, much less know how a conspiracy of this magnitude could be kept secret; but that’s obviously what happened if you listen to the conservative media and conservative bloggers like my friend Lil Mike.

When the news of the emails broke, there was an outcry from the conservative mainstream media that liberal news wasn’t covering the story. It took Jon Stewart about 30 seconds to disprove this theory, but if there’s one thing we know about today’s conservatives it’s that they don’t want to be held to a standard of truth themselves, they just want to hold everyone else to an impeachable standard. Besides, they just knew global warming was bunk. How did they know you wonder?  Well Sean Hannity tells us that it’s not real because it snowed in Huston.

Wow, you mean global warming is a hoax because it got cold in winter time? Well, I’m convinced…or I would be if I was a conservative. But I’m not and it’s not because I have some kind of agenda. In my opinion global warming is a bummer. Not only because of the effects on the planet but also because of the effects on my lifestyle. I enjoy all my electrical amenities, my small SUV, my virgin toilet paper and my beef.  So global warming is an inconvenience to my personal lifestyle and I would love to bury my head in the sand and forget about it. But living on the east coast of Florida and seeing the increased numbers,frequency and sheer size of some of the last few hurricane  not to mention the heat? Holy shit, this past June was the hottest we’ve have… ever, and  it’s 10 days before Christmas and we’re still having almost 90 degree temperatures.  So no, I can’t afford to ignore something of this nature because like it or not, this has been the hottest decade recorded.

Back to the emails. It wasn’t a ‘liberal’ media conspiracy to hide the news of the stolen emails, it was an effort to say “Hold on a second, lets see what we have here before we get all weepy with joy at catching someone red-handed”, you would think atleast Sarah Palin would have been on the side of those showing restraint. Since she’s condemned the media for making things up ,you’d think she’d want them to get it right.. But this kind of story is like crack to a crackhead, so of course the conservative mainstream media was jonesing to exploit,misrepresent, and bastardize it.

Thankfully we have real journalist who did wait, who did investigate and who did not jump on the tea-bagging bandwagon..

Review: E-mails show pettiness,

not fraud

Climate experts, AP reporters

go through 1,000 exchanges

LONDON – E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Yes Virginia, 5 reporters and seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy have weighed in and it’s not global warming that’s bunk, it’s the believers and pushers of ‘Climate-gate’ who have been found wanting. But even knowing this, will the  vast conservative media network still shill for the oil companies and play to their ‘drill baby drill’ base?  You Betcha!

Related articles by Zemanta

• AP Study Shows Climategate Does NOT Disprove Climate Claims (alan.com)
• Sen. Inhofe Pushes The Crooked Science Argument About Climate Change After Wallace Said This Decade Warmest One Ever. (crooksandliars.com)
• Palin Denies Her Previous Stance On Climate Change (alan.com)

Insurer ends health program

rather than pay out big

Ian Pearl has fought for his life every day of his 37 years. Confined to a wheelchair and hooked to a breathing tube, the muscular dystrophy victim refuses to give up.

But his insurance company already has.

Legally barred from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims, the New York-based insurer simply canceled lines of coverage altogether in entire states to avoid paying high-cost claims like Mr. Pearl's.

In an e-mail, one Guardian Life Insurance Co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. Pearl "dogs" that the company could "get rid of."

That's right, Mr. Pearl, is a "Dog" that the company needs to "Get rid of"

Let's put this is perspective for just a second. I told you about a friend of mine recently to try and put a face many of us know on this healthcare debate.  I wanted Chuck's story to be on everyone's mind as they were regurgitating the latest poison from Glenn Beck's mouth. I wanted people to have a visual of the person they were condemning in their almost orgasmic need to have a United States President fail. A failure that  some of these people  dream of, masturbate to...pray for every chance they get. "At all costs" is the motto, "At any cost" is the pledge.

I failed of course, not even the plight of a great man and amazing friend to many of us made a scratch in the shell that surrounds these ideologues.

So I will try again.

Instead of Mr. Pearl, who has the same condition as Chuck, I want to you again put Chuck's name, his face, his interaction with you, his "self".. put him in this story. Does that do anything for you ideologues? Can you sit there and hear that Chuck is just a "Dog" who needs to be gotten "rid of" because he dared to buy an insurance policy, he dared to pay it, he dared to get a debilitating degenerative disease and most of all  he dared to not die quickly enough?  The company that waspaid to cover health costs  can't cancel one 'dog'  because it would be against the law, so they just cancel an entire state of 'dogs'. Is there any face I can put on this problem that will make a dent?

You may say "Oh but Kelly, I'm sure the courts will stop the insurance company from canceling everyone with this kind if policy. I'm sure a judge will see that this man, Mr. Pearl will die if this insurance company is allowed to cancel his policy." But you would be wrong.

A federal court quickly ruled that the company's actions were legal, so on Dec. 1, barring an order by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Pearl will lose his benefits.

So much for that 'check and balance'.

For those that abhor government intervention, will you cry with Glenn Beck if the  Health "Czar" Kathleen Sebelius orders the company to live up to it's contract.

Sadly, we all know the answer to that... Yes, yes  you will.

Will those of you who even thought about trying to explain just how President Obama was creating "Death Panels" care to pick up your pitchfork against this actual 'death panel'?  Mr. Pearl needs 24 hr nursing care, he is on a ventilator and needs hourly breathing treatments and continuous intravenous medication. Without this he will die, here is your Death Panel Sara Palin, will you 'tweet' about how evil this is? Will you take hundreds of thousand of dollars for a speech on this kind of injustice, will the people who aped your stupidity write Mr. Pearl or even Chuck's name on a sign and demand they not be forgotten?

Sadly, we know the answer to that is.. no, no you won't.

Guardian, a 150-year-old mutual company, reported profits of $437 million last year, a 50 percent increase over $292 million in 2007. It paid dividends of $723 million to policyholders and had $4.3 billion in capital reserves, according to its annual report. The company's investment income totaled $1.5 billion that year, a small increase from the year earlier.

This is who you protect with your hatred of a President. This is who you protect with  your 'at any cost'  ideologue.

"In an e-mail to four other Guardian executives entered into evidence in the Pearls' suit, company Vice President Tim Birely discussed how the company could "eliminate this entire block to get rid of the few dogs."

.. and don't think you can get away with the argument of "Well, you Democrats are in power now and we can't do anything stop you." It's condescending, it's insincere and it's bullshit. Most insulting of all.. you know it, snicker and use it anyway.

20 years ago a friend of mine took a ride with a person he had just recently started hanging around. He didn't know him too well but he seemed cool and they got along. That night the new guy told my friend he was going to rob a local mom & pop grocer for some extra cash. My friend wasn't a violent person, he wasn't a criminal, he wasn't a bad person in any way... but he because he was 17 and stupid he didn't speak up.

The new guy went into the store while my friend waited in the car, he could have left at that point but for whatever reason he didn't. After a few minutes the new guy came running back out, jumped in the car and away they went. They never spoke of what went on inside the store and it wasn't until the next morning when the police showed up at his parents house to arrest him that my friend found out that the store owner had been shot and killed by the new guy. My friend was tried and convicted as an accessory to the crime and is on death row awaiting his date with the executioner. Does he deserve to die for a crime he had no part in? Some would say yes he does, but then again.. they would also be the ones to tell Mr. Pearl to go out and get a job if he wants health care.

The real "Dog" here isn't Mr. Pearl and it isn't Chuck or any of the other poor souls who have paid their premiums each month only to have them canceled because they did not die quick enough. The real "dogs" are the insurance company who cares more about an enormous bottom line over the lives they are supposed to be protecting. You all fighting reform at all costs.. at any cost, this is the dog you have allowed into your bed by not saying anything even when you know what they are doing is not only wrong, dangerous and against humanity, but could possibly be murderous. Just like the saying "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas"  this is on you whether you like it or not.

Lindsey Graham is currently finding that sad fact out. Arlen Specter and Colin Powell could have told him, but a conservative republican of Grahams stature, with his conservative record would have ignored their warnings just as the rest of the ideologues will ignore this liberal's warning. When you go against the beast you create, the beast you've allowed to take over to fight your battle for you, when you go against it... you pay their price. It's apropos that Graham is now the one to fight off charges that can not be defended because they have no basis in reality. "Fake Republican," "RINO" (Republican in name only), a "traitor," "disgrace," "asshat," "democrat in drag," and a "wussypants, girly-man, half-a-sissy".

The beast you fed,nurtured, appeased every step of the way while pretending "that's  not what my belief..it's theirs".. and "Hey, you guys are in power not us".. that beast is self-aware and is devouring your party.  That is who your next leaders will have no choice but to cater to. The metaphorically date with the executioner that you await for being an accessory to the crime, would be justice in and of itself if so many truly innocent people weren't being punished along with you. Don't believe there are 'truly innocent' people being punished? Well, I give you one final story

17-Pound, 4-Month-Old Baby

Denied Health Insurance

for Being Too Fat

Underwriters, the people who are in charge of assessing risk for insurance companies, have decided that baby Alex's pre-existing condition — obesity — makes him a high-risk patient and have denied him coverage.

His parents were shocked.

"I could understand if we could control what he's eating. But he's 4 months old. He's breast-feeding. We can't put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill," joked his frustrated father, Bernie Lange, a part-time news anchor at KKCO-TV in Grand Junction. "There is just something absurd about denying an infant."

The beast you continue to actively support or just ignore because the end is justified by the means for you... denied a 4 month old, breastfed baby for the pre-existing condition of  obesity.

I hope you are happy with your creation.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fox wonders why White House sees them as reflexively anti-Obama. Then its pundits bitch about his Nobel Prize (crooksandliars.com)
• Gov't investigates health insurance company mailer (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Obama's Health-Care Speech: A Test of National Character - TIME (time.com)

Essentially, that is my problem with all of this. I already have a problem with the FDA and AMA being owned by drug companies, why make the problem bigger?

If this is how you feel, that private companies already have too many fingers in the political arena and are turning policy in their favor, then the only option for you is the public option.

As it stands now all healthcare options are  owned,regulated,price marked and everything else relating to  them by the for-profit health insurance companies. Your doctor doesn’t decide his fee, Cigna,Aetna,BCBS decide what and if they will pay him.It is the insurance company who decides what they will pay, who they will pay, where they will pay.. who can get their product and  who can keep their product even after paying for it for decades. Without a public option, the way it is now will look like the ‘better’ way in 5 years..

Think about it for  second… A not-for-profit public option that would be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects, going from the Government to the healthcare provider(i.e.. doctor,clinic,hospital)  is  a direct line to the ones doing the service. Yet, this has been deemed evil,socialistic,freedom robbing and bad because it is the government who is collecting the money and giving it out to the providers…

The other alternative is that we subsidized[pay for] not just the >5% who would chose a public option but all 45 million uninsured American with a credit that comes from private and public funds{i.e. taxpayers} . The difference is  that the money goes directly to the insurance company where they take their 30% cut and then decide whether to pay the doctors/hospitals the rest. It is a mainline from your wallet into the wallets of the same types you say you are against, the private companies- NOT the doctors and hospitals proving your care.

Somehow the government  paying the insurance company with taxpayer’s money instead of the provider being paid with the fees that those in the option have paid for is the better option for some. How it’s  better or less socialist for the government to subsidize the insurance companies is something I haven’t had explained to me even though I keep asking,but let’s keep moving.

Not only will the government subsidize the insurance company, but without regulation or something in the market competing with them, the insurance companies can get their ‘asking price’ for any policy they offer, meaning they can start charging the government whatever they want for the healthcare the government is buying from them..while still retaining the right to decide how much they will reimburse the doctors,hospitals or if they even will reimburse them.

What is being asked for here to control this is the choice of a public option, for  less than 5% of the uninsured in the United States .   Less than 5% of those uninsured now, not 20% of the entire population, 50% all of the United States of America, but >5% of the 18% who are without insurance..

I’m not being a smart-ass.. but read that again before moving on…

“Let me be clear — it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance,” he said.

“No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates,

we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would

sign up.”-Obama health speech before congress

we’re talking millions of people yes,  but single digit millions.

The not-for-profit public  option will force these unregulated companies to atleast keep their fees reasonable. It won’t put them out of business, the creation of any reform will ensure 45 million more people buy their product. That’s not taking money away from them… that is a windfall of fat cash coming their direction.

The not-for-profit public option will force these companies to own up to their contracts and actually pay out more claims, because to deny someone coverage because of a preexisting condition will become illegal.  It will force them to become a better product than they are right now, because  right now the ‘free market’ is allowing them to have all the marbles whether those be taxpayers marbles or private marbles. It is allowing them to collect whatever amount of money they want while choosing when and who to pay it out to. You purchased your insurance plan to cover your medical costs, you didn’t  purchase it so they company you chose could have complete autonomy to do with your money as they saw fit and thus leaving you responsible for the doctor bill at the same time.

Again, read this again. You pay the insurance company to cover your health care costs.. if they deem your claim unworthy, you are still responsible for the payment  to the doctor/clinic or hospital who treated you. So now you have paid the insurance company to keep your money and the doctor to treat you. Seriously people, if you just want to send your money to someone while still being responsible for your bills, I’ll be glad to accept it instead.

To put it simply, there are only two choices here.. .We either pay the insurance companies to insure the uninsured and thus, paying their fee for doing this  or we pay the doctors directly to treat the uninsured. If you don’t like big Pharma being involved in the politics and decision making, then you can’t be against something that  takes big insurance out of the politics and decision making on people lives.

What is wrong with giving the overwhelming majority of the people a choice of what is out there?  That’s all, a choice.

I found a quote from Bill Moyers on another blog that said

“we should be treating health as a condition, not a commodity.”

I can’t imagine it being put into simpler terms.

If you are wondering just how much around the fingers of the insurance CEO’s the politicians have wrapped themselves, there are calls for ‘tort reform’.  This will in essence regulate how much money a lawyer can be paid for his services. Why are we so against providers of the actual services being reimbursed for their product and so much in favor of the companies who offer no other service than to hold our money and decide who or if they will pay with it. If the doctors and lawyers charge too much, isn’t one of the tenents of ‘free market capitalism’ that they will be weeded out as their competitors  offered the same for less?  Isn’t government imposing the will of   a select few companies, who service is solely to pay these doctors and lawyers the money you gave them, isn’t imposing those companies will over the will of the ones doing  the service you hired them for,  more detrimental to  the idea of Capitalism?

****UPDATE****

sometimes a good video says it all…

Related articles by Zemanta

• 44,789 Die Annually For Lack of Health Insurance (mydd.com)
• BUYING HEALTH INSURANCE FROM PRIVATE INSURERS IS NOT THE SOLUTION FOR MANY AMERICANS. We need a public option or better FIRST! (iflizwerequeen.com)
• The Healing of America (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)

“Fear here… I got fear here… 1 trillion dollars… get your fear…“

sorry, 900 billion… like any of us really know the difference…

So, is Obama simply repeating the mistakes of Bush II by selling important things to the American people with fear?

fear here, fear now.. we must stop it.

Well, we must stop it when it is President Obama doing the mongering, when it is a Democrat’s agenda, when it is an issue that 70% of the country’s population want.

We are being led to believe that the ‘fear’ the President it ‘mongering’ on the rise of insurance prices, the crippling effect that the uninsured have on the medical system, and the eventual crash of medicare/medicaid  is just fanciful and over-the-top unnecessary rhetoric. But this isn’t about the country, this isn’t about helping the 70% majority get what they are begging for,the Republican’s  only goal here is to stop Obama by ending his hope of healthcare for everyone. The idea behind  stopping the healthcare reform the President is asking for is that it will  bring his popularity down enough for Republicans to  hope for a chance to win a majority of congressional elections is 2010. This isn’t about you or me to the Republicans, this is about beating Obama and winning congressional seats. Just ask Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). He isn’t afraid to admit the Republican agenda.

“When you tell people that the mortality rate in Canada is 25% higher for breast cancer, 18% higher for prostate cancer, you know, they say why in the world would we emulate a system like that?”

Of course they are telling them a lie, because that is not the system we are trying to emulate.. but what good is a little truth when your goal is fear. Why bother with the truth when the  the mortality rate for mortality is 3% higher in the United States than Canada? Because then, you lose your argument all together.

This idea of pretending that our healthcare system would suffer or the bonus-cuts the poor and destitute health insurance CEO’s would have to endure are not the issue, is ridiculous. The issue is to do what it takes to win at all costs.

“I just hope the President keeps talking about it, keeps trying to rush it through. We can stall it. And that’s going to be a huge gain for those of us who want to turn this thing over in the 2010 election.”-Sen. James Inhofe

The majority of us who support a public plan and are willing to pay for it, are sadly not as important as those who donate millions to coffers of our elected officials both Democrat and Republican. Oddly enough, the ones taking the most money from Phamra and Big Insurance are the one blocking reform by calling for bi-partisanship. Which in this case means a bill so watered down and useless that it will do more harm than good. And yet to call them on this, to explain the immediate need for reform, to try and give a democracy what it’s demanding.. is to be out there ‘fear mongering’ and scaring the public and this just isn’t to be born!

We had to wire-tap our own citizens for fear that the terrorists were  making covert plans over the wires.

We had to torture  subjects who were captured for fear that they might  know something. In order to do that though, we had to change the wording of strict Geneva convention guidelines to change these POW’s into ‘enemy combatant’ for fear that the laws may protect them.

We had to detain  combatants  in secret holding facilities all over the world for fear that they would escape or worse, join together and become a ’super-terrorist cell’.

We could not try these combatants  in our own courts on our own soil for fear that they would  get off and be released into the population and begin collaborating with one another on another attack.

We could not house these combatants in our own maximum security prison system for fear that they may do what no one else has done, and escape.. or for fear that they would join in with the other extremely dangerous inmates housed with them and created new terrorists  networks.

We were even told to vote for the Republicans because they tried  to make us fear that they were the only one capable of keeping us safe in these uncertain times.

It’s telling that when these issue were brought up and the fear mongering was pointed at as an unnecessary tactic, he reply from the same people complaining about the supposed fear mongering President Obama is spreading, was

“So the Prez tells you stuff that you don’t like and don’t want to hear, and for his trouble of actually treating you like an adult and not sugar coating it, you call it “fear mongering.”

or

It’s legitimate and warrants some extra consideration.“

That’s almost as “fair” as the people deciding the fate of the health reform being recipients of millions of dollars from the insurance companies… but not quite.

The scary idea that some Republicans are trying to make into some kind of truth, that once this reform is enacted, our elderly will be put out to pasture, is some of the most ridiculous and preposterous yet to be voiced in this debate. In country where a doctor is criminally punished for aiding terminal patients with only hours to live in excruciating pain, it’s asinine to believe that we would all of a sudden kill off an entire segment of our population. But fear is what the Republicans peddle to get their way, even if their way goes against what 72% of the population and 50% of their constituents are asking for.

The scariest part of all.. is that we and the Democrats in Congress will let them get away with it.

The only thing there is to fear here is the money Republicans and some Democrats will lose from the Health sector if they don’t get out and pimp for them now.

Oh…and to the Republicans who complain that bureaucrats should not be involved in the decisions between a doctor and patient, first I ask, is the  17 year old high school student working after school and weekends at the insurance call center denying  the care your physician is asking for now, doing that job any better?.. and then I say to those crying a whoa is me over politicians not being a deciding factor in the doctor/patient conversation.. Thank You for joining the ‘Pro-choice’ movement, the ‘Pro-medicinal marijuana’ movement and the ‘pro-assisted suicide’ movement, can we count on your support in 2010?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama Should Say: To Hell With A Second Term, I’m Just Doing This (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
• Inhofe and the Ugly Truth about the GOP (dailykos.com)

well, not anymore…

Here is my rebuttal to Lil Mike’s

Public Option? -> Only Option

Feel free to join in the debate in the comment sections.

..

” But one thing is clear, if it’s going to be reform in any way that Obama and the far left of the Democratic Party care about, it’s got to have the “Public Option.”  Right now the administration is having it both ways.  On the one hand it’s saying that it has no intention of driving private insurers out of business, but on the other hand, reassuring Congressional Democrats that the President is still committed to having a public option as part of his vision of health care reform.

Why the Public Option?  The formal answer was included in Obama’s letter to Senators Kennedy and Baucus:

“I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.”

Competition?  There are approximately 1300 health insurance providers in the US.  Really, will 1301 really make the difference and suddenly lead to “a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest?”  That’s all it would take, just one more provider?  The idea is so ridiculous that you would have to be a White House journalist to buy it.”

Ok, will one more provider really make a difference? Absofuckinglutley!  Yes, 1300 companies offering the same shitty product would actually have to offer a better option if a bigger and better player came on to the scene. Your debate isn’t whether the Government can offer a product that will make the other companies provide a better choice, your argument is… Should the Government offer that product at all.. So let’s not play games with throwing in all this other stuff..

“What makes the public option the crown jewel of any health care reform plan?  It’s the camel’s nose under the tent for single payer government healthcare.  No, this isn’t just Republican scare-mongering.  I can hardly imagine any other conclusion for the insistence on a government healthcare plan.  And it’s easy to see how it would happen.  The logic is this:  One of the keys of health care reform is an individual mandate, but you can’t very well have one if people cannot afford to buy health insurance, so you have to provide an option for people too poor to pay.  Enter the public option.  An analysis of several public option scenarios shows that premiums could be 30 to 40 percent less than comparable private plans.  That of course hinges on the government paying reimbursement rates comparable to Medicare, which are 70-80 percent of what private insurers pay.”

I read your Lewin Group PDF analysis it was interesting.. until I Googled them and found out that..

Lewin Group is) part of Ingenix, which is owned by United Healthcare Group, the insurance behemoth that has been buying up insurance companies left and right, expanding its reach into just about every segment of the health-insurance market. Its flagship, UnitedHealthcare, helps make it the largest health insurer in the country. It’s a safe bet that United is not too keen on a public plan that might shrink its business.

Now I don’t find them credible in this discussion..Sorry about that but seriously, you wouldn’t allow me to use Rahm’s notes as actual unbiased data would you?But let’s address this ‘fear-mongering’ warpath scream of “Single Payer Healthcare-Oh My”..  Why is it that every time a Democrat tries to do anything you Pub’s start screaming ‘Government take-over!” “Government Control” “States Right!” and“Give me Liberty” , when after 8 years of massive Government abuse, Lenin-ish intrustion, insane Government spending,  and obscene Government entitlements there was nothing but the sound-bite of “If you’re not with the President, you are with the terrorists” to anyone who raised a fart of a question?

But now, Oh My God! We’re killing health care…!! We’re taxing people too much..!! Businesses will crumble..!!

really?

Did you know that Bush’s medicare proposal was…

…aimed to inject market forces into Medicare by encouraging beneficiaries to enroll in government-subsidized private health plans that would compete directly with the traditional government-run, fee-for-service program. The drug benefit would be the chief inducement for seniors to make the switch to private plans.

Maybe I missed it, but were there Fox News sponsored Tea-parties for that?

Something else I just found out (by the way, this is why Mike and I do this so well… during our hunt for facts we often find other facts that come in handy in other debates) “The Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security was the brainchild of one William Jefferson Clinton.” Sure the website is a little nutty and over the top in it’s ‘doomsday’ opinions, and in all seriousness I shouldn’t link it because you will use it against me, but what the hell.. it pretty much spells out everything I’m saying about what the Pubs were happy to do with a Pub leader and shit themselves when it’s a Democrat doing the same thing. Best of all, it does it with the same chicken-little hyperbole you guys are using now..

In short, Bush’s encouragement to beneficiaries to enroll out of their private plans and into the government plan didn’t bring about “Single-Payer Storm troopers” and neither will President Obama’s. But if… if it did, once again you can thank Bush for that ummm…camel nose under the tent… since he started the ball rolling…

Of course I loathe the ‘It’s Bush’s fault” argument.. It was fun for a few years there, but now it’s just old,crusty and only garners a slight roll of the eyes… The problem is, there are just so many fucking things that are his fault and you Pubs are just now finding that out because Obama is following in his footsteps on alot of them. So as loathsome as it is to say.. it’s still applicable.

Moving on…

“So one of the ways the Obama plan controls costs is just by paying the doctors and hospitals less.  I’m sure that will make a great incentive for people to go into the medical field.  And who wouldn’t want to be taxed to subsidize their competitor?”

President Obama will pay doctors less and therefore who would ever go into the med field.. An addendum to this argument is the.. “we will become a 3rd world health care system because there will be no incentives (money) for research”… OK 1st, we already are below many 3rd world countries when it comes to our health care and as for the rest? Well,  I can think of one disease that if it wasn’t for the French, not only would we still be calling it GRID, who knows when someone would have been able to isolate the AIDS retrovirus. Hell, it was a German who discovered that HPV was the leading cause in cervical cancer…

As for being paid less? When did we lose that ‘country doctor’ mentality of people becoming a doctor to help people? Was it around the same time insurance companies first started popping up? I’d really love to see a study on the correlation of the emergence of insurance companies and their control and doctors treating people less because it’s what they dream of doing and more to try and become a million by the time they are 30.

In short, I don’t know what President Obama’s plans on the pay scale for doctors and hospitals is. I know that right now we spend more money on administration costs than just about anything else. Medicare proves that you only need to spend 2% on admin costs and still function admirably.. $230 billion a year is spent in California alone on administration costs, Obama’s plan cost less than 1/2 that for the entire country.. so why those  massive saving would not trickle down throughout the system is beyond me.  To me, it would seem that if $25 from every $100 doctor visit that went to insurance administration now, was cut to $2, the doctor would be seeing a hell of alot better of a return.

“First, the same analysis shows that depending on the premium rate for the public option, 119 million people could lose their private health insurance…If the public plan has lower premiums, what do they care what rate their doctor gets paid at?  Others would find themselves dumped.  Why would companies want the expense of maintaining their own health insurance coverage when a public plan can offer lower premiums?”

I addressed this somewhat above when I brought Bush’s plan to get people off the private rolls and onto the public ones  to your attention already, but that’s not my argument against it, a bad plan is a bad plan no matter who the President is, something the Republican  religion doesn’t like to admit..My argument is this… I believe you are wrong.. those insurance companies will be forced to compete with the new plan.. they will have to offer something else, whether it be a lower premium or more coverage or an annual trip to Bermuda..whatever.. I mean do you seriously think they’ll just keel over and die? Hell no, they’ll find something that their competitor doesn’t have and offer it..

Back in the 90’s I was fired for being pregnant, lost my insurance(not that I had prenatal anyway), and was forced to go on Medicaid. HMO’s were exploding at that time and you were forced to pick either an HMO or straight medicaid. There was many HMO’s to chose from  and they all pretty much offered the same plans as each other and medicaid but since there was competition, the HMO’s decided to offer other incentives to get people to enroll in their plan. It was piddly shit like  children vitamins each month with this one, free contacts with that one, free vitamins,contacts and bubble gum with the other..(ok, not really on the bubble gum.. but you get the point).. the catch was you had to use their doctors,their hospitals and their pharmacies. Or you could stick with medicaid and go with pretty much whoever you wanted. I liked my doctor and she took medicaid so I chose that path. So when you tell me that a government sponsored plan will not only force people out of their private plan but will force private plans to close up shop and move away.. I laugh! These companies want to succeed today just as much as they want to succeed tomorrow and they will find a way to entice employers to keep paying them.. Whether that be free vitamins or a free trip to Bora-Bora for the employer who signs up the most employees onto their plan.Most, if not all, will adapt and  survive… and those that don’t? Well, you don’t mind when they fall in a full capitalistic society do you?

So why is a Public plan the only option? Because without it there is no change.. With it there is a crack in the monopoly-like hold insurance companies have on this country and it’s leaders. They have never had to worry about regulation and competition before and now they are throwing out all the buzz words that make  conservative hard.. “Socialism”..”Government sponsored”..”Government entitlement”… and to that I say Pshaw! Look what the debate has already done for health care… before a person was actually denied  treatment for her cancer because her insurance company said an outbreak of pimples in her past constituted a ‘pre-existing conditions’.Pimples!  But now all of a sudden insurance companies are screaming that sure,  they can get rid of the pre-existing conditions clause. The debate alone is forcing other companies to offer more benefits at a lower cost to women in some states.. The debate alone is changing health care for the better.. If the debate is cleaning up health care and the conglomerate-do-as-they-please  hold on health care that the insurance companies have.. then I am encouraged as to what an actual Public Plan will be able to do.

So, the cost factor? One state already pays 1 and 1/2 times more for just the administrative costs than the public plan for an entire country.

The reduction of doctor’s fee and hospital costs? The savings from the decrease in administration costs should increase what the medical providers see.

The loss of research and cutting edge medicine? You walk into the  Pasteur Institute and tell them they’re a 2nd tier institute.

Socialism? Please.. George Socialist Bush!

The loss of a free market? No, more like the opening of a closed market and forcing it to become competitive to survive..

Yes… Public Option? is the only Option

Related articles by Zemanta

• Poll Shows Most Americans Want Public Health Care (themoderatevoice.com)
• NYTimes Poll: 72% of Americans favor Public Option in healthcare (masbury.wordpress.com)
• What’s a public health plan anyway? (money.cnn.com)
• 18,000 dead: The moral issues of health care (masbury.wordpress.com)

The story,  is along the lines of a blog that I did not too long ago entitled “Hoping for Audacity”.  While reading some of the comments on Mr. Crook’s blog page, I was glad to see I’m not the only one asking … Where is the audacious, ‘yes we can’ leader we elected?

I do not believe it is an insult to ask,” Mr. President, what are you afraid of?” or “what are you waiting for?” I believe in fact it’s the prudent thing to do because he may just be thinking that if he holds out for just a little bit more, then maybe the GOP will just fall in line and do as he pleases..

The problem here is…  that will never happen.

The GOP would rather turn on it’s own than step one foot into the bipartisan arena and that is because of is this newly emerging ‘religious-like’ dogma code the GOP are living by these days. It’s been slow to take shape, but it’s become undeniable that the GOP followers see their party as a type of religion and their leaders as some kinds of prophets or disciples to be worshiped at all costs. You only have to look at Mark Sanford to see what it is I’m talking about.

Since when do Republicans endorse abandoning their post, turning off their cell phones,lying to their aids and leaving  their state without a leader for a few days while  going out and getting their love on in another country with their mistress, who their wife had told them they couldn’t visit all of the 8 times they asked  if they could visit?

I seem to remember not too long ago the outrage wasn’t that Clinton had sex with that woman (wink-wink), but it was that he did it while in the Oval office and while being on the phone with members of Congress. ‘What kind of leader would do such a thing’ was demanded and ‘he should be run out of town for it’ seemed to be the reply.  Well, who would have known that had Bill just left his secret service detail,wife,child,phone, office and gone missing in Argentina for a week with Monica.. we could have save  bundles of time and energy.

Image via Wikipedia

The contortion one has to accomplish to justify Sanford’s actions are only mimicked in religion. I am surprised that Bill Maher hasn’t picked up on this yet.  This, need to excuse everything at all cost because any dent in the dogma  may bring it all down upon them.

What Sanford did was wrong. The reason he did it, to have a quickie, is not the issue.. atleast not for the Democrats. Their only reason for even bringing up the affair is because it’s too great an irony that the ‘righteous’ and ‘moral’ party is once again caught with their pants down, so great in fact that it just can’t be ignored. But, that is not the meat of the issue in the questions surrounding whether he should resign  or not. OF course he should resign! He went missing for 5 days without a care in the world as to what happened to  the state he was governing.  I can see not wanting his wife to know where he was, but he didn’t even tell his aids or turn his phone on just in case  something happened that he needed to be reachable for.

There is no question that he should resign, not for his affair.. but for his going AWOL. The bizarre part isn’t in thinking that, it’s in watching someone justify why his excuse for the adultery is the reason why he should not resign for leaving his job. Sure King David fell, but number one, he’s not King David and number 2, he’s not being asked to step down because he can’t be trusted to keep it in his pants, he’s being asked to step down because he can’t be trusted to govern. Sanford  and not so bizarrely, Rush, used the excuse that he had just come off a hard defeat in trying to fight President Obama’s socialist march through South Carolina and he needed the rest. Well… what is going to happen after the next stressful time? Is Sanford going to pretend he and one of his children have been car-jacked when he actually just ran off to Disney World?

There is something in the GOP these days that not only fears coming out against one of their own when that person is absolutely  and on every level, wrong.. but when there are some that do come out against the holy see, they are excommunicated for their dissent.

The party of the religious has itself turned into a religion that must not be disputed, doubted or  diverged from.

If those in their own party can’t compete with this without fear of being tossed out, how can President Obama think he can accomplish any bipartisan achievements? The simple truth of it is, he can’t. But that’s why he was elected with such a majority and given all the congressional tools he needed to accomplish his vision. We  the people wanted certain policies enacted or changed. We hoped to finally be able to say “Yes we did” but someone forget to tell the President this and it’s time someone reminds Superman that he doesn’t have to duck when the gun is thrown at him.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ron Christie Slams Mark Sanford: “Disgrace” Who Should Resign (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• King David, Governor Sanford, and Republican Party Platforms – Not Necessarily in that Order (themoderatevoice.com)
• Peggy Noonan Thinks Republicans Just Need to Go to Confession a Lot (videocafe.crooksandliars.com)
• MSNBC Brings on Rudy Giuliani to Discuss Mark Sanford’s Affair (videocafe.crooksandliars.com)