When seeking solutions to health care, who better to look to than our own Hollywood celebrities ? These celebrities have become very wealthy in our capitalist system, and they live in big mansions. Who better to speak out against the evils of insurance company profits (average 3.4% profit margin) than super-profitable celebs ? I only wish film director/child rapist Roman Polanski could have been added to the following Hollywood public service announcement. Many celebrities support him too. You know the old saying in Hollywood, "each Oscar received entitles you to one child rape." What can I say ? Hollywood celebrities are just better than the rest of us.
Alas, I have bad news for our celebs. The Democratic-led Senate Finance Committee just voted down the health care reform public option. How did that happen ? It must be Bush's fault.
But the celebrities aren't the only ones who can make public service announcements these days. The folks over at PJTV have their own PSA, that looks very much like the one above from Hollywood and moveon.org. If I didn't know better, I'd suspect……..satire of the Hollywood satire.
Obviously, there's something wrong with those PJTV people, who must be listening to Glenn Beck. We better kick Beck off the air before a Rwanda-type civil war breaks out in America, as Hollywood celeb Bette Midler said. Yes sirree. Genocide and civil dissent are EXACTLY THE SAME THING. PJTV is probably paid by the insurance industry. What a bunch of right-wing extremists, expecting people to actually PAY for health care services. What can they possibly be thinking ? We don't pay for things in America anymore. That's a failed idea from the past. Ask a celebrity, they'll tell you. Or just shell out some dough and go see a Hollywood movie to forget all your woes for a couple hours. Maybe then you won't even notice the economy shed another 263,000 jobs in september. Not to worry, though. Will Ferrell is doing fine.
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }
I got as far as the 1:20 mark in your second video. That's when the racism started in earnest.
Why is it that racism always has to be part of any conservative attempt at rebuttal?
I prefer "When in Doubt, Try to Scare Everyone":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY9iXX1fT3A
The racism ???
Poor Rev. You just don't get it. There was no racism. One of the producers of the video was……..oh, hell, never mind. You're hopeless.
Steve,
I wonder if "the urgency" returned in the last couple weeks, when Zazi and company were busted.
King,
There's always going to be the risk of terrorist threats, regardless of who is President…the "urgency" is always there. The problem is the Republicans use the possibility of another terrorist strike as a scare tactic to try to sway public opinion on other things.
Reverand,
Racism is a serious charge, too often used to silence those with whom one disagrees. I viewed the PJTV video, but did not see any racist appeals. Please substantiate this charge.
Beginning at the 1:08 mark……"Be a real black man or woman, support that brother in the White House. Come on, you know they have some killer health care in Zimbabwe. Why can't we get the same? Don't be jivin'."
Quid…..you saw what you wanted to see….apparently. You know, if the racism starting at 1:09 had been a snake…you would have been bitten. I mean…..how insanely laughable are your I'm-so-offended words….."racism is a serious charge….I did not see any racist appeals……please substantiate this charge."
King acts all dismissive, starting to say that there was a genuine black man in the video….and that proves there was no racist intent. Simpleminded doesn't fully capture that mentality.
Reverand,
You confuse the mocking of racialist thinking with the real thing. Do you also think "Huckleberry Finn" is racist because one of Twain's characters is named "Nigger Jim"?
Apparently there are some things that one cannot parody. Such as the liberal trope that critics of Obama and his policies are racists.
Here is a refreshing suggestion: Why don't you stop the tedious name-calling and defend the President's policies with reasoned argumentation?
Quidpro,
Rev Red has always been able to cry racist, even before The Man was elected. Racism has been very widely used by the left to attempt to push the good guys aside by trying to embarrass them with that cry of racism.
Rev couldn't watch beyond that point because he thought he saw the racism he wanted to see. He does need racism to do his thing and that is a bit racist to me.
King,
That never mind guy was on the video more than any of the others but I guess if a black man isn't on more than all the rest, combined, you have racism, at least in the eyes of Rev.
Unfortunately overuse of the race card by Reverend and his fellow Obamatons only denigrates the efforts of those who have fought and still fight real discrimination. It is beginning to look like it's going to be one step forward, two steps back with this administration in regard to race relations in this country.
Did anybody hear the progs talking about 80% of our people wanting the kind of health care that Democrats are fighting for. I don't think those people read Rasmussen Reports since they report 56% of the people being against this crap. However, Rasmussen does poll probable voters, not just adults of all stripes.
King-
Your figure of 3.4% profit maybe true, but what is appalling is administrative cost of 25%.
All this industry does is move paper and money around, and employ 6 lobbyists for every representative and senator in DC. The same congressmen on the right of the aisle who cry socialism, don't mind that they and their families are on govt health care ins. One last thing, beware of senators from small states, either party, they can be bought for a pittance. That is why the public option was voted down, and yet another reason why lobbyists and campaign finance have become a hinderance to the good of this country.
Thanks king, the second video made my day.
Rev, be careful we realize your not a racist BUT when you criticize (the 1:08 remark) a minority you have become no better than those you attack.
from Rasmussen………..
http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/08/health-care-reform-what-do-people-really-want.html
I'm glad New Franklin mentioned the 3.4% profit issue from King's blog post. What does that number have to do with anything? In a money-laundering scam, which is all insurance is, it isn't the percentage of profit that's vital….it's the amount of money laundered through the system. Trillions. When there is no product being produced or sold, and no service performed either…..that 3.4% number is simply what can be skimmed off the top of a money movement scheme.
King included the 3.4% number to give a false perception that the health insurance industry really, really, operates on thin margins and just barely gets by on such a low profit margin. Horsepucky. New Franklin rightly points out the waste in overhead by the money schemers. And I would add the point that flush CEO salaries and shareholder's dividends are paid BEFORE that 3.4% number is calculated.
Not sure why King continues to defend a handful of rich folks profitting even more from the suffering and misery of others.
Now the Rev says there is "no service being performed" by the health insurance industry.
That's an, um, "interesting" observation, because nobody is forced to buy health insurance (at least until the Democrats get through), yet 80% of this country DOES purchase health insurance. We must have an awful lot of stupid people in America to pay all that money for "no service being performed" by health insurers. The Reverend should also alert the Democrats, whose health care reform is centered around forcing everyone to buy health insurance and a massive increase in the welfare subsidies. Those Dems are spending a ton of money for "no service being performed." I guess we better abandon health care reform, because, according to the Rev, it's meaningless. I guess we should eliminate health insurance instead. Wouldn't that work out great ?
And I apologize for pointing out that health insurance companies average profit margin is 3.4%, but that happens to be true. I'm not sure how me pointing out a fact makes me a shil for the rich, but I can't follow the Rev's convoluted thinking anyway. Btw, probably 99% of those working for health insurance companies are most definitely NOT rich. They are just Americans trying to support their families, like the rest of us.
FYI – The service performed by insurance companies is alleviation of risk. If the insurance companies weren't providing that service, NOBODY would voluntarily purchase their product.
New Franklin,
Every business has operating costs (including the government), but I think most health insurance company operating costs are around 15%. When I look at the financial statements of the major health care providers, that's what I see.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:UNH&fstype=ii
In addition, those who say Medicare has 2% operating costs aren't being truthful. The federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare of inefficiency. The operating costs of our federal government were almost $1 trillion in 2008 (on $2.7 trillion in revenues). I call that 37% operating costs, not 2%. You can't pick out one department (CMS) and pretend it's independent from the whole. Not to mention that the fed can never balance it's budget, or that the fed operates using a cash accounting basis instead of an accrual basis, which would make things look far worse.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4BE69C20081215
And the number of health care lobbyists is due to the corruption of the government. No corruption = no lobbyists. If Congress wasn't for sale, nobody would be trying to buy them. That's actually a reason to NOT be for the public option. That'd be like handing health care over to the mafia, except in this case, we call the mafia "Congress." That would dramatically increase the number of health care lobbyists, not decrease them.
I agree with you about campaign finance.
angryc,
The Rev is purposely misreading satire as racism. He isn't fooling anyone.
Funny that you brought up the mafia.
People pay the mob so the mob won't hurt them. That's called blackmail. People pay insurance mobsters hoping when something threatens their health they won't get tragically hurt financially. Not much difference in the two, really.
Drawing a conclusion like King did that because 80% of Americans buy insurance that, in itself, proves insurance is offering a service….is, naturally, ridiculous. Americans recognize what a service is and is not. Insurance, far from selling a product or a service, is simply a parasitical money shuffling industry which adds costs to needed services and products by denying policy holder claims for those services. Health insurance is in the medical service denying business. In other words, health insurance services themselves.
And yes, health insurance companies should be phased out. Single payer, government-paid health care is the most efficient, compassion, fair, modern-age approach to universally-needed medical care. I wonder why America can't keep up with other 21st century advanced societies.
The irony here is that Democrats wouldn't even allow single payer to be discussed, I suppose, in order to please the cultic right. But there is no pleasing the new fundamentalist right….see: public option rejection by every Republican. Republicans are proving that they actually hate Americans….but they really, really, love corporations who profit from denying those Americans whom they hate….medical care.
maybe I should be asking celebrities how much tort reform will save insurance consumers
Yes, that would probably make sense to you.
Rev says, "People pay insurance mobsters hoping when something threatens their health they won't get tragically hurt financially. Not much difference in the two, really."
Not if your incapable of rational thought. FYI – NOBODY is forced to buy health insurance, as I said before. Until the REAL mobsters (Dems) show up to force them to buy it, that is.
Rev says, "a parasitical money shuffling industry which adds costs to needed services and products by denying policy holder claims for those services. Health insurance is in the medical service denying business"
Interesting again, since insurance companies pay out most of their revenues in claims. I've needed three serious operations/hospitalizations in my life, and the insurance company paid for all three. How do you explain that ? If I hadn't had insurance, I would have been ruined financially. How do you explain that ? Is that "no service being performed" ?
Or are you just bs'ing again ?
And the crazy train keeps on rolling.
Rev says, "Democrats wouldn't even allow single payer to be discussed, I suppose, in order to please the cultic right"
Yes, as everyone knows, the Democrats always operate to please the right-wing. LOL.
Are you having a contest with yourself to see how ridiculous your statements can become ? It seems so.
You're underestimating how important bi-partisanship is to the Villagers. Correct me if I'm wrong….but haven't I seen a parade of dumbass Republicans telling me how the bill must be bi-partisan with 65-70 votes to be legitimate? Or was that just a dream?
Just ask yourself…..if Pelosi is liberal, and House Democrats are liberal…..why no bill with single-payer? Could it be…..dare I suggest….that the effing Democrats are, at best, moderates? Why yes, I think they are. That would make the party of no….neanderthals.
Come on Rev. You have to see that some of those Democrats who want to be re-elected next year are those who Pelosi calls Blue Dogs. Those people will be needed for the House to pass much of anything and all of them have been to a number of town hall meetings and see that there is one way for them to get re-elected and it is not go vote for single payer. The rest of the Dems are very left leaning and willing to vote for such a thing because their President promised it and there are enough people who voted for him who have to have that kind of welfare to be happy and satisfied.
Just yesterday I read a thing written by one of those lib protesters from the 60s about how they were after guaranteed wages from the federal government. Now that would have taken some real socialism and then I thought about how those welfare people from California trapped McGovern on that stairway and drove me away from the Democrat party by forcing him to promise to get them a $5600 guaranteed wage. That is not much now but in 1972 it wasn't bad for anyone who didn't work to get it.
You are throwing so much Pelosi around here that you are going to bury all of us if y ou don't slow down.
Rev,
I still don't know who the Villagers are supposed to be, but it's true that not all Democrats are liberals, thank goodness. THAT is why single-payer won't fly, and why Obama didn't go for it, even though that's what he really wants.
Roy,
I was listening to former Clinton advisor Dick Morris on tv the other day, and he said Clinton told him that for the first couple years of his presidency, Clinton was following the liberals so much that Clinton said didn't even recognize himself. When the GOP took over Congress after those first couple failed years, Clinton forgot about the liberals, took a pragmatic right turn toward the Republicans, and then all the good things happened – economic growth, job creation, and a balanced budget.
It's odd that the Reverend would state insurance is not a service on this blog, while elsewhere arguing that not having insurance cost 44,000 Americans their lives. Odd.
larry,
Like the nuns used to tell me in Catholic grade school, it's a mystery. The Rev is so full of contradictions that I can't even keep up with them all.
No, larry…not odd at all. Very consistent. When the mafia offs people for not paying protection…..people die. Same with insurance. In fact, it's exactly the same.
The reason Americans feel compelled to buy mob-insurance protection is in the hopes of not losing everything they've worked for. Meanwhile, the mobster insurers are working to cut back on those hopes by denying claims.
Those are the facts…..whether we like them or not. Health insurance is a parasite….the American people are it's host.
Rev says, "When the mafia offs people for not paying protection…..people die. Same with insurance. In fact, it's exactly the same.
Really ? It's EXACTLY the same as the mob killing people for protection money as when people voluntarily purchase health insurance ?
The astounding thing is, I think the Reverend actually believes this. Mental illness IS a problem in this country, as the Reverend so perfectly illustrates.
this from Forbes……
The Obama plan will also bar insurance companies from refusing to cover people based on pre-existing conditions (either by not offering them coverage outright or by charging ludicrous premiums). The insurance companies have no problem with this, so long as everyone is required to have insurance to stop people from staying uninsured until the day after they're seriously ill.
The mandate that everyone be insured is a sticking point for some on the left and on the right. I'm sympathetic to those who believe, as Obama did in the primaries, that it's basically unenforceable, and I also sympathize with freedom lovers who think it's a bit nanny-statish. But if we're willing to subsidize purchases for those who can't afford to buy insurance, and the insurance industry is willing to end rescission and stop refusing to cover people who are already sick, then this is a good deal both for society and the shareholders of publicly traded health companies. The mandate isn't a slippery slope toward socialized medicine, it's more like a subsidy for industry, and that's probably why the insurers don't mind it.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/14/health-care-aetna-opinions-columnists-michael-maiello.html
You are in la la land, Reverend.