Today, I read in the Community section of the Beacon what Geauga County Republican state senator Tim Grendell, speaking at yesterday's Cuyahoga Falls, Republican Party Tea Bagging protest event, said to a crowd of 7000 Tea Baggers….
"I was not born in a socialist country, and I will not die in a socialist country."
Unless Mr. Grendell is, like, over 65 years old, he was born into a country that had already incorporated many socialist programs into it's normal life before he was born. Barring a Tea Bagger Revolution (which could be quite an ugly sight when you think about it), Mr. Grendell will most likely pass on with those socialist programs, and several more, still firmly in place.
So, the question, I guess, I would have for Mr. Grendell is similar to the one Barney Frank asked recently, "What country were you born in?" The question I have for Geauga County voters is, "why would you elect such an ignorant person for your state representative?"
Recently, while driving in an adjacent township, I saw a couple of new handmade political signs. The signs were in someone's front yard but within the right of way of a state highway, which usually extends 60 feet from the center of the highway. The signs read "Wake up America. Socialism is at the door."
To which my immediate response was, "it's a state highway, socialism has always been 'at the door.'"
These two examples demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy that the Tea Baggers and the Townhall Buster-Uppers bring to any "debate." I don't know if the Baggers and Busters are knowingly ignorant or obliviously ignorant….and frankly, I don't care. What I care about is the ignorance, itself.
Consider….
The "Wake up America, Socialism is at the door" signs could be seen by thousands of people daily passing by on the Ohio state highway whose berm the signs were placed on. That highway was only made possible by socialized Ohio tax dollars. State taxes were gathered from Ohio citizens and pooled to create that state highway. State taxes continue to maintain that highway. Irony, I don't think, gets anymore unintended than that.
In short, without state socialism, that protest sign wouldn't have received much exposure. Socialism made it possible for this "wake up America" warner…..to…..ummm…..warn us about socialism.
The township the "Wake up America" signs were in has just completed two brand spanking new elementary school buildings. Those school buildings were made possible by socialized real estate taxes plus socialized county and state taxes. Public education has been a socialized enterprise from the get go….I mean, that's why it's called "public" education.
In the case of Mr. Republican State Senator, Tim Grendell…..the guy who says he wasn't "born in a socialist country" and insists that he won't die in one either……he's simply lying, he knows better.
I have some information for the Tea Bagging Grendell. The United States has enjoyed many successful socialized programs and projects and we've had those successful and popular programs for many, many years. Do you think Mr. Tea Bagger From Geauga County isn't familiar with the Post Office, Social Security, Medicare, national defense, national and state parks, interstate and state highways, public education, local fire and emergency protection, PBS, NPR, public transportation, FEMA, NASA……? Of course, Mr Bagger is aware of all those socialized programs.
Why, then, would Mr. Grendell say ignorant stuff like "I wasn't born in a socialized country and I'm not going to die in one?"
There's only one answer to his obvious lying to those Fellow Baggers gathered for their Tea Party in Cuyahoga Falls yesterday……..political gain. Obviously ignorant Republican voters want to believe the lies GOP politicos continually spout. Conservatives detest the Democratic Party's policies, the policies needed in a modern world……diversity, the rights of minorities, gays, women, the freedom of legal abortion, stem cell research, health care reform, etc., etc. Because of this entrenched ideological hatred of all things Democratic, Republican voters don't care whether what their leaders are telling them is true or not, or makes any sense whatsoever…..they just know that if Democrats are for it, they're against it with extreme prejudice.
The practice of Republicans openly and blatantly lying has risen to epidemic proportions over the last 20 years or so. What it has produced over those years is a constituency immune to truth.
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
Of course it's for political gain Rev. Have you heard much truth out of either side? Just finger pointing and general nuttiness. This big round of lies appears to have begun with the "badger like" unwarranted crucifixion of Sarah Palen. All gloves are off after the way they treated her. And the press still torments her because they fear her. SHe could be that 3rd party candidate that could win. Especially since America is tired of our current two parties.
You are partially right this time but draw the wrong conclusion. The fact that programs like Social Security, Medicare etc. are part of a Socialist leaning agenda doesn't make them right. The fact that people see the health care debate as a tipping point doesn't make them wrong or liars. Many see this as a last stand to make sure we don't end up at the bottom of the slippery slope of total government control of their lives.
Also, where in the Constitution is the Congress given the power to regulate Health Care? Hint, the answer is nowhere.
Please do not lecture the rev. ,"it" is the know all person that you should ALWAYS accept his decrees from his lofty position as font of all knowledge.How dare you question his majestic words from the land that he shares with Barney Frank and other rulers. Please heed the kind revelation that he so kindly imparts to us the unwashed that we are.
Rev,
The idea you are presenting is that because highways and schools are socialized, we might as well socialize everything else.
Uh, no. Hell no.
Rev, to qote one of the great orators of our time "Why don't you wake up and smell what you shoveling?" -Sgt. Al Powell
Heed Martin's advice.
No Smoking, like Newt, Armey and the rest would end SS, Medicare….and most likely would privatize the roadways, schools, etc.
average encourages my fondest dreams of an even more extreme, Palin-led third party.
And King leaves out SS, Medicare, our national defense, FEMA, NASA, police, firefighters…..and…umm…so forth.
The point of the post was the willful ignorance, the lies, and the nonsensical approach to issues that conservatives and Republicans are so eager to be ignorant and tell lies about.
Since it's painfully obvious that America has already embraced numerous socialist policies and programs….and appreciates them…..why on earth would anyone pay any attention to those who lie and are willfully ignorant about them??
The reason that Republicans and conservatives are too timid to say they want to eliminate Medicare, SS, public highways, schools, police, etc…..is because the American people, overwhelmingly, want all those "socialistic" programs. And so they act like they're ignorant…..and they lie.
Just pointing out the obvious.
Want the real backroom truth about the health reform "debate"?
Go here. http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/19/the-baucus-caucus-phrma-insurance-hospitals-and-rahm/
Nobody denies that there are legitimate uses for government. Nobody.
The issue is, where do we draw the line on government ? You are suggesting there is no line, and that is probably the most dangerous idea imaginable. If you don't think so, read a political history of the 20th century.
The majority of Americans are against Obama's health care reform.
Personally, I have no desire in furthering the interests of ANY of the groups you mentioned. I was taught to work hard and take care of myself without help. Grew up in a poor family, with a single mother that wouldn't take handouts. Did without a whole lot in my childhood. I have no interest in giving away ANY of my hard-earned dollars to give handouts to anyone else. Personally, I would like to keep my S.S. and FICA dollars and invest them myself. I will gladly sign a waiver that I will never seek SS comp, as long as I don't have to contribute. I would rather keep my city taxes and apply them to my kids' private school tuition. And, if the government doesn't want to respect my rights to do that, then I will just have to look out for myself.
As for abortion, I could care less. Go for it, and give me a little more air to breathe. Stem cell, go for it. Provide me with cures that I may need to buy one day. As for diversity, it is against my rights to have it forced upon me. You may want it, but I don't. Just like they really don't want it. It will never work. Every man is equal, in my book. And, they all deserve equality. But, some cultures just don't melt together, so well. Stay in your playground, I will stay in mine. FEMA is worthless. NASA is a waste. Have they blown anything up lately? I would rather let a privateer like Richard Branson handle the space exploration. Everything NASA touches goes to $heeot. Medicare? Total waste. Give everyone a scooter from the Scooter Store. "Guaranteed or it's free". They are overpaying for obese old people to have colonoscopies 2 times a year.
You got me on the fire, police and freeways. I guess I am 5% "Che".
Honest and appreciated comment there, Pyro.
If everyone in society were like you, it would be great. Seriously. But the reality is that not everyone has a Type A personality. I hear what you're saying about taking care of business and being independent but, again, what do you do with all those who might not be as productive, driven and intelligent as you are. What's your threshold for collective society? Is it just fire and police?
And King….I'm not saying there's no limit to government. For example, on the national defense side, where one trillion dollars in taxes are spent on policing the world every year. That, forgive me, sounds like it's over any reasonable limits for government. Right?
What's worse, the American people really don't receive anything in return for that trillion. 9-11 happened after we had reached a peak in defense spending, and what the hell did it get us? So there's that. It costs too much and it didn't work in a pinch. And don't get me started on Iraq.
So's I'm for taking $500 billion of that one trillion and using it to pay for health care services for all Americans. I'm also for raising upper level income taxes and increasing the short term capital gains tax to 35%. The liberals are right on this issue. The moral and humane thing for America to do is join the rest of the modern industrialized countries and provide adequate health care to all it's citizens.
I mean, surely you believe that. Health care for all Americans is not some illegitimate, unnecessary pork program. It's essential, not only for Americans, but for the American economy.
The only way to dump 45 million new customers into an already existing insurance industry, is to have that industry checked by a competing, not for profit, government controlled public insurance option. Pure economics. If a public option is not included, everybody's rates are going to go up, and most likely, drastically.
King, 76% support a public option.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey Study
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/090617_NBC-WSJ_poll_Full.pdf
34a. In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance––extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?
Extremely important …………………….. 41
Quite important …………………………… 35
Not that important ……………………….. 12
Not at all important ……………………… 8
Not sure …………………………………… 4
Got to admit. You are really good at positing straw man arguments and then blowing them up. Americans receive "nothing" for the money spent on defense? Really?
"The only way to dump 45 million new customers into an already existing insurance industry, is to have that industry checked by a competing, not for profit, government controlled public insurance option. Pure economics. If a public option is not included, everybody's rates are going to go up, and most likely, drastically."
Wrong on several accounts. First, the Constitution of the United States does not give the Congress power to create a health care system. That really should end the argument right there if the socialist agenda wasn't so important to a segment of the population. Second, stop it with the exaggeration of the number of people who WANT health insurance but don't have it. You might be shocked, but I am in favor of making sure that all legal citizens who want health care have access to it. Quoting a number of 45 million is just as misleading as saying that the current bill creates death panels.
The problem is that the bills being proposed are both unconstitutional and unnecessary. Check out wrongreform.com for a pretty good analysis of the bill and let's discuss the areas of disagreement. Then we will get somewhere. I won't hold my breath because it doesn't serve your ambitions.
We disagree on the Constitution. It doesn't speak either way about health care….which is to be expected given the timeframe of it's writing. But it does speak of Congress looking out for the welfare of the people. In today's society nothing could be more important to the people's welfare than health care.
I looked at your link Pyro, it's written by an insurance company veteran. You didn't mention that. The writer has a direct conflict of interest, and is not trustworthy. Here's one example from the link….
"Part of what those bureaucracies will do is lower the "insurance" payments to health care providers to current Medicare A and B levels. That's right. Doctors will be taking a massive pay cut."
This is not true. Hospitals, clinics, yes….but not doctors. Doctors, according to the bill, will receive higher reimbursement.
The writer is not credible.
Tell me which one of these speaks to creating a health care bureaucracy. Thanks.
Key Constitutional Grants
of Powers to Congress
Article I, Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
" looked at your link Pyro, it's written by an insurance company veteran. You didn't mention that. The writer has a direct conflict of interest, and is not trustworthy. Here's one example from the link….
"Part of what those bureaucracies will do is lower the "insurance" payments to health care providers to current Medicare A and B levels. That's right. Doctors will be taking a massive pay cut."
This is not true. Hospitals, clinics, yes….but not doctors. Doctors, according to the bill, will receive higher reimbursement.
The writer is not credible."
It was my link. You didn't mention that, even though the author's business stood to benefit from the bill, he found major problems with it.
You pull out one cite, claim you know the truth about it and then question the author's credibility. Where in HR3200 does it say that compensation to doctors will increase? Proves you don't want a debate, just blind loyalty. Just like when you claim nobody from the center or the right has made any competing health care proposals. Pure BS.
Not BS. Tax exempt deferred health savings accounts and tort reform aren't "proposals" to reform health coverage. Those are standard-issue GOP political points….tax cuts or loopholes for the richest, and attacks on those terrible "trial lawyers."
Furthermore, your Consitution piece states clearly….
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; "
Providing for the general Welfare, and regulating the cost of such welfare through Commerce "among the several States"…..it would seem to me…..would logically include health care.
Your mileage, of course, will vary.
Rev-
Maybe you, or one your posters, can answer something that I just can't wrap my brain around. I can understand why people would be suspicous of the govt. expanding public healthcare insurance. What I can't understand is where is the outrage over how the current insurance companies do business. I mean, premiums and co-pays go up double digits nearly every year, doctors and their offices are not being paid and end up charging patients, and people are being dropped when they become too high of a risk. It seems some people are ready to go to war to defend these insurance companies, and I have no idea why.
As far as I can plumb the thinking of conservatives….it's all about the size and scope of government AND the conservative addiction to privatizing everything.
Medicare has worked fine for 44 years and no senior I know wants to trash it. Yet, innumerable horror stories exist about private insurance effing people over.
It has all become a media war and the media is controlled by corporate interests.
The conservative response to the problem you so clearly define, premiums and co-pays doubling…..is more private, for-profit, experimenting. It's an ideological tic they have. Corporate-whore media is more than willing to promote that tic, for obvious reasons.
Additionally, millions of working class conservatives have been siding with the most affluent for a long time. Southern working class families have been voting against their own interests for decades….because they detest blacks, gays, non-believers, abortion, whatever Democrats are for.
That's what I think is going on when conservatives defend the already-flush health insurers. It's maddening.
For the Republican haters. Most do support a public option, most of the posters here support a public option. What we don't want is a govt take over of health care. What we want os the truth and someone that can explain the whole program to us. Now factchek.com is getting involved and they are proving that Obama doesn't know what the program entails. He has the final say, he will sign it, and he doesn't know it inside and out? A bill that will cost us trillions and will skyrocket our taxes. Are you kidding me?
While it was a good program they can't even pay the cash for clunkers money to the dealers on time, imagine healthcare. The govt is closing the program because many dealers are backing out because it is causing them financil strife? Go figure.
And Rev, know one here is defending the insurers, we just know what happens when the Dems get their grimmy paws on our money.
Quite obviously, the founding fathers had zero intent to create a government health bureaucracy when they coined the "Commerce clause". They were concerned that states would not engage in interstate commerce and wanted to encourage it. You know that is a huge leap.
This doesn't sound like BS to me. Sounds like fixing what's broken and leaving the rest alone.
Six Straightforward Steps to Better Healthcare
To create a system that delivers more choices of higher quality health care at lower cost we need to take the following six straightforward steps:
1. Stop Paying the Crooks. First, we must dramatically reduce healthcare fraud within our current healthcare system. Outright fraud — criminal activity — accounts for as much as 10 percent of all healthcare spending. That is more than $200 billion every year. Medicare alone could account for as much as $40 billion a year. (Please visit http://www.healthtransformation.net for the information about our latest CHT Press book, Stop Paying the Crooks, edited by Jim Frogue.)
2. Move from a Paper-based to an Electronic Health System. As it stands now, it is simply impossible to keep up with fraud in a paper-based system. An electronic system would free tens of billions of dollars to be spent on investing on the kind of modern system that will transform healthcare. In addition, it would dramatically increase our ability to eliminate costly medical errors and to accelerate the adoption of new solutions and breakthroughs.
3. Tax Reform. The savings realized through very deliberately and very systematically eliminating fraud could be used to provide tax incentives and vouchers that would help cover those Americans who currently can’t afford coverage. In addition, we need to expand tax incentives for insurance provided by small employers and the self-employed. Finally, elimination of capital gains taxes for investments in health-solution companies can greatly impact the creation advancement of new solutions that create better health at lower cost.
4. Create a Health-Based Health System. In essence, we must create a system that focuses on improving individual health. The best way to accomplish this is to find out what solutions are actually working today that save lives and save money and then design public policy to encourage their widespread adoption. For example, according to the Dartmouth Health Atlas, if the 6,000 hospitals in the country provided the same standard of care of the Intermountain or Mayo health clinics, Medicare alone would save 30 percent of total spending every year. We need to make best practices the minimum practice. We need the federal government and other healthcare stakeholders to consistently migrate to best practices that ensure quality, safety and better outcomes.
5. Reform Our Health Justice System. Currently, the U.S. civil justice system is the most expensive in the world — about double the average cost in virtually every other industrialized nation. But for all of the money spent, our civil justice system neither effectively compensates persons injured from medical negligence nor encourages the elimination of medical errors. Because physicians fear malpractice suits, defensive medicine (redundant, wasteful treatment designed to avoid lawsuits, not treat the patient) has become pervasive. CHT is developing a number of bold health-justice reforms including a “safe harbor” for physicians who followed clinical best practices in the treatment of a patient. You can learn more at http://www.healthtransformation.net.
6. Invest in Scientific Research and Breakthroughs. We must accelerate and focus national efforts, re-engineer care delivery, and ultimately prevent diseases such as Alzheimer's Disease and diabetes which are financially crippling our healthcare system.
The Last Thing We Need is a Plan That Raises Taxes and Eliminates Jobs
Clearly, the last thing America needs is more taxes on job producers, whether it is in the form of a national energy tax, automatic tax increases in 2010 when the 2003 tax relief measures expire, or a healthcare plan that will raise taxes, eliminate jobs, and allows Washington bureaucrats to make decisions that ought to be made by individual Americans together with their families and doctors.
1 & 2 & 4 are part of Obama's plan.
3 is pure GOP tax cutting ….and the idea that eliminating fraud is going to pay for those who don't have coverage now is laughable.
5 is stereotypical GOP 'bash the trial lawyers' tort reform.
The problem with health care is that it is too expensive. The only way, right now, to break this logjam, is with a serious competitive player. That's what the public option is about.
If taxes need to be raised on the most affluent, than so be it, because they have benefitted the most over the last decade.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Wouldn't access to medical care fall under "promote the general Welfare?"
Rev, you say the rich have benefitted most. How about worked the hardest and smartest.
jimmy,
Other polls show the majority against Obama's health care plan, and even the poll you cited is out of date. The latest NBC/WSJ poll shows that Americans think Obama would make health care worse.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32464936/ns/politics-white_house/
I would add – allow insurance companies to compete on a national level to that list of health care reforms.
It's telling that the Reverend is only against the GOP proposals mentioned, even when they would make health care more affordable for people and lower the costs.
Rev says, "But it [the Constitution] does speak of Congress looking out for the welfare of the people"
If the "general welfare" part of the Constitution were intended as a broad principle, it would negate the rest of the Constitution, because it would allow the government to do virtually anything and claim it was for the general welfare of the people. That's why James Madison said the following:
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
There is no Constitutional authority for the government to run health care.
"There is no Constitutional authority for the government to run health care."
Exactly right. And isn't it frightening to anyone on the left, right or center that this never even enters into the discussion anymore. When the country gets a hang nail, we just assume that the Federal Government will act. Most of the time if they did nothing we would be better off.
If that is true…..then, I suppose conservatives believe Medicare and S. Security are unconstitutional…..as well as a host of other domestic programs.
Now here's the rub…..those who believe that government should stay out of these arenas, also believe private enterprise should be the ones to deal in those same arenas.
From private banksters, to big AIG insurers, to Big Stock Market, ……to Big Pharma and Big Health Insurers…..what we've been witnessing from the private sector has been nothing short of monopolistic criminal behavior. Private enterprise has led us directly into the severe recession we're experiencing.
When the American people are being held hostage to huge monopolistic private enterprises, enterprises structured and operated only to enrich a handful of already fat cats…..then government must step in to guarantee that the general welfare of the people is protected.
"Private enterprise has led us directly into the severe recession we're experiencing. "
Only a partial truth there, Rev. Government created the housing bubble by intentionally manipulating the market to get more people into homes. Wall Street and the bankers ran with the hand they were dealt by the government.
Not to mention that private enterprise in a free market is what made America the wealthiest country in the history of the world in the first place. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't going to remedy anything.
And please don't use the word "monopolistic" to describe private enterprise when you are advocating for an actual monopoly (single-payer). That's just silly.
Your philosophy, at least, has been consistent on the accountability front. Bushies can't be held accountable because lawyers made them all do what they did……and banksters and brokers can't be held accountable for their disastrous schemes of greed, again, because the government made them do it. It's ridiculous.
I'm not sure that technology hasn't been the engine that has driven the American economy historically. Yes, there is a place for those who make and market the stuff technology comes up with….but what do you have without technology? Old stuff.
So Medicare is a monopoly now? Federal highways? A monopoly. National parks? Monopolies.
This confluence of different issues into one issue is very dishonest.
First of all, on the torture issue, I was just telling you why it would be hard to get a conviction against Bush. I wasn't actually saying Bush isn't responsible for anything. Nuanced thinking just goes over your head, I guess.
On the financial mess, again, I didn't say nobody should be held accountable. I hold Wall Street accountable for a lot. I'm just adding in the fact that the subprimes, combined with the bundling and securitizing of loans (Fannie/Freddie), combined with the pressuring and fining of banks who didn't play ball by making irresponsible loans, WAS IMPLEMENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. There's nothing ridiculous about it (and I experienced it firsthand working in the banking industry). I don't know why you feel the need to keep denying it. It's odd.
Is there some way Medicare isn't a monopoly ? Who competes against Medicare ? Nobody.
The reason no one competes against Medicare is because there's no profits for Wall Street whores to squeeze out. I suppose you could call that a monopoly…….more like lack of interest in competing.