Vile Contemptible Nonsense
Posted on August 19th, 2009 by Clark Stooksbury
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Google 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Digg Stumble Upon Newsvine Slashdot Mixx Diigo Delicious Reddit Facebook
One thing I dislike about politicians is their fear of saying anything substantive, or that might offend someone. That’s why I was glad to see Barney Frank dispatch a cretin at a constituent meeting (I refuse to dignify these charades as “town hall meetings”), in a clip I found via Kevin Drum. Frank forthrightly dismissed a question about the “Nazi” health plan afoot as “vile contemptible nonsense” and told the young woman that talking to her was as productive as talking to a dining room table.
Filed under: Politics
Barney Frank knows he’ll never be President and seems to have no interest in being a Senator. That gives him a lot of freedom. And between that clip and the one of the woman yelling ‘Heil Hitler’ to an American from Israel because he spoke in favour of health care reform, its time for some of them to say ‘I could push you out of the way of an oncoming car, and you’d complain that it was a foreign car.’
Reminds me of when I was dating a massage therapist (and I am one myself). I couldnt see her anymore because she wouldn’t shut up about how much she hates Republicans. I voted, donated, and worked for Obama’s campaign. But there’s no talking to some people.
Letter goes out to insurance companies, strongly implying that their support of the President’s healthcare (or lack thereof), may effect compensation limits that are set for company officers:
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/08/19/will-waxman-stupak-be-the-new-dingell-stupak/
“people with ACORN shirts on and SEIU and …” “And then two buses, two school buses of people came in, coming off the bus shouting, “What do we want? Health care.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539702,00.html
If we know many liberals are liars, then what do we know about this lady you are discussing? What evidence do you have that she wasn’t a Barney Frank “plant”?
And if that individual was genuine, what can you give us to show that the points she wished to communicate were invalid? Except Barney Frank’s word for it, that is.
Which of you good libs were afraid to use the word “nazi” when you were discussing your favorite punching-bag, Bush and his “last 8 years”?
Frank is the closest we have to an American Churchill. I hope one day to agree with him on an issue.
“And if that individual was genuine, what can you give us to show that the points she wished to communicate were invalid?”
The history of Nazi Germany invalidates her argument. That there are potential similarities between the Nazi health-care system and Obamacare is beside the point.
One might as well call Mother Teresa “Hitleresque” because both she and Adolf Hitler had toes.
All people have toes; it is in the nature of human-ness to have toes.
All political systems do not have socialized medicine. It was a vile, impolitic, rude, uncharitable remark, this is true. And I have no doubt it was purposefully provocative. So yes, it invalidates, as it were, her as a speaker.
Nonetheless, the point holds. National Socialism had socialist elements. So was Italian Fascism, FDR’s New Deal, etc. etc. What follows is subject to debate.
I’m waiting for more American to act like Frank when dealintg with morons. Sometimes one can be too polite. Take the movie “Bruno” for example. Someone needed to tell him to buzz off.
What dialog? Frank is committed to extending government involvement into our health care, and the protesters are there to scream no! The fact that Frank is a disgusting, dissembling pervert who enjoys a good verbal confrontation shouldn’t distract us from seeing that no one came to reason together. Either Franks wins or we do.
May I as a Canadian slip in a a bit of reality based information in this incredible debate in your country about providing health care to all. I live close to the border and hear in the media these criticisms of our health care system that are so inaccurate.
My wife and I are in our 70’s and have had to meet a few serious medical challenges in the last 10 years, some of them life threatenning. In every single instance, we have been treated immediately and competently.
Most Canadians are not stupid or uninformed. If our system were so bad, why would it be political suicide for any elected representative to propose any substantial modification to it? Even our current Conservative government would not dare threaten the system.
By the way, our system is not government run, as we often hear in US media, it is government funded. It is privately run like yours, and, yes, we do choose our own doctors… Does our system compare favourably in all points to yours?. I’m sure not. There has to be a small cost of ensuring that 100% of our fellow citizens are covered no matter what their wealth or employment status is.
If you have time to read an interesting article about Nazi economics, this is a good one: http://mises.org/story/1935
National Socialism had socialist elements. So does FDR’s New Deal. And France. And Sweden. It’s about context. One government program does not a socialist country make.
Let’s not get into conspiracy theories about that lady being a plant because that ignores the painful point that many other Americans truly fear Obama’s healthcare reforms as the beginning of the slippery slope to Nazism. And many others have expressed that same opinion. Invalidating her authenticity does not invalidate that many others are just as ignorant.
Cheers to Barney Frank for trying to get the discussion back to what matters: healthcare reform.
Public options isn’t the best idea for a massive, polarized country like the US. It works for smaller, more politically homogeneous countries like Sweden (yes, they are socialist!) But if all we’re doing is wasting our breath to explain to people that grandma’s not going to get killed, that Obama is not Hitler reincarnate, then where is the time available to spend talking about REAL solutions other than public health programs? I’d like to hear a viable option like how universal private health insurance is mandated in Switzerland, not angry citizens and politicians going back and forth on how the administration is destroying.
These town halls are not a litmus test for beliefs nor an avenue to air all grievances against corrupt, pork barreling big government. They’re a place for real solutions in the true American spirit. Unfortunately, they’re becoming a circus for all the crazies to come out and make conservatives look bad.
Ashley, the true American spirit is to give your congressman hell while he tries to get your vote with free whiskey. Of course town halls are another matter. But they never had anything to do with congressmen.
Ashley,
Read the article I linked to.
Thomas,
Thanks for the laugh. My town could use more town halls.
“It’s about context.”
Spoken like a member of the “it can never happen here”/what could possibly go wrong? choir. If that’s the best you got then you’ve basically agreed with that nutball’s point. My point being that, nutball though she was, hey, whaddya know, there’s a valid point there. Kinda like saying that drunk McCarthy was right! Which he was.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Barney’s been arrogant and high-handed with more rational and responsible critics, but I guess if the questioner’s crazy enough, we can forget all about that and pat him on the back.
Andre, it would be political suicide for any politician in any country that currently has a single payer system to suggest dismantling it in favor of a system like ours. In fact, it’s political suicide in this country too. No one would dare touch Medicare. Had Truman not buckled under to the AMA back in the 40s, the US would have universal care just like Canada, UK etc. And it would be just as sacrosanct here as it is in your country.
Many Americans suffer from what I call ‘Confederate Soldier syndrome.’ This is a condition that makes an individual fight for a cause in which he has no interest, or even more likely, in a cause whose ends are diametrically opposed to his own best interests. Personally, I think the hallmark of a free man is a man who can assess his own best interest and act accordingly. The rest are slaves and fools.
mrmetrowest,
Yes, of course. And also,I believe that the pursuit of happiness should include the hapiness of others.
May I mention another experience that our family is living through at this moment and is making us even more appreciative of our great system.
Last month, during a routine medical examination, an abdomidal tumour-like growth was found in our niece. Because of the complexity of the situation (she was 7 month pregnant), she was immediately (within hours) rushed by an air ambulance helicopter to a medical clinic in another city which had the appropriate medical services to deal with the situation. The baby is now born, and our niece is receiving attentive treatment for her condition.
For every case of ‘delayed service’ reported in the American media about our medical system, there are thousands of instances of positive experiences like ours that go unreported.
[...] Clark Stooksbury at TAC [...]
I heard (don’t know whether it’s true or not ) that the woman in question is a LaRouchie.
Aside for that comparing the nationalized system in Canada to a one in the US is apples and oranges. Canada has about the population of California, the US has 300+million people including some 12-20 million illegal aliens.The Dem plan(of which there are three or four floating around ) will most likely require applicants to sign a declaration of some sort that they are in the US illegally with no actual verification required.
The US plan will also require the hiring of hordes of semi-literate Affirmative Action clerks and bureaucrats with all the potential chaos that implies. .
Not apples and oranges. Maybe a bag versus a bushel of apples. The more people to serve, the more resources available surely.
I would think that a single-payer system would reduce the potential for chaos, not increase it. Even if there were to be some chaos, wouldn’t that be preferable to millions of people being inadequately protected ?
The Canadian system is NOT nationalized. Services are paid for by the government, but they are offered by non government providers (individual practitioners, hospitals and clinics) who compete with each other just like in the US, albeit in a more regulated environment in terms of cost control. As a consequence, medical expenditures per capital in Canada is half of what Americans spend each year. Of the two, it is by far the least costly system in spite of the fact that the system covers ALL Canadians against ALL medical conditions (preexistent or not).
Please forgive my intrusion in your affairs, but if people are going to attack our wonderful Canadian system, it is difficult for a person like me who has been so priviledged to benefit from it to stand by and hear all the misinformation unanswered.
“National Socialism had socialist elements.”
Yes, very perceptive! It’s hard to fathom that “National Socialism” had elements of socialism in it. Maybe that’s why it’s called National Socialism?
If you are interested in better understanding Canada’s system, you may find the following link useful :
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427
Based on my own personnal experience, I can vouch for the accuracy of the information presented in that article.
Well by golly, it seems there was a time in the US when we did have rationing and death panels for real:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101776.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
The Canadian plan-which apparently is funded by the provinces, not the national government- is apparently for Canadians. The House bill would cover illegal aliens-plus other aliens in the US with the 80 or so types of temporary visas.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=656670
“The former Colorado lawmaker says it is insulting and unacceptable for the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) to proclaim that the House healthcare reform bill does not cover illegal aliens, while continuing to support language in the bill that does give them eligibility through the back door.”
“If they think that it’s not going to be available to illegal aliens in this country, why would they continue to use the number 47-million people uninsured?” he wonders. “Because even they know that about half of those people [of the 47-million] who they identify as uninsured…are non-citizens.”
“Tom TancredoTancredo, who now runs The Rocky Mountain Foundation, says there is also a section in H.R. 3200 which allows all family members to qualify if any one family member is eligible under the new plan.”
(…)
If a program is fully funded by the govt it is “socialized” by any reasonable definition despite any Rube Goldberg mechanisms designed to conceal the fact.
Something along the lines of the Swiss plan seems like the best option, but it would probably have to revised to adapt to the realities of an oversized, heterogeneous country like the US.
http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/bus/stories/DN-swisshealth_07bus.ART0.State.Edition2.21730ee.html
Interview with Tom Tancredo explaining at length why illegals will be able to enroll in the plan proposed by the House:
http://www.kfi640.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=JohnandKen.xml
Interview is on Aug 24, 6PM
The best discussion you’ll read on health care reform:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
Why is it more important to deny health care to illegal immigrants than to offer it to the millions of registered citizens who are currently not covered?
Also, is it really in the interest of the common good to have millions of people in any society who have no protection against disease?